Author: Betsy L Angert

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Sit down my child and you shall hear the tale I tell of what was once revered.  I know you are sleepy and need your rest.  Perhaps, this parable will be the best anecdote for a body too busy to slumber.  Close your eyes and count the sheep, as I whisper words that might make you weep.  The fable is horrific, as most fantasies are.  Nonetheless, my hope is the narrative will bestow great wisdom.  When we contemplate the harsh realities of life we learn lessons.  There are principles to digest, my darling.  Too few discover; too many forget.

Once upon a time, on the morning of October 4, 2007, The New York Times reported, the United States government endorsed the use of severe and cruel methods during interrogation.  The decision was delivered in secret.  

Two years earlier Americans were told the Justice Department forbade such measures.  Yet, in truth they never had.  This, dear one, is characteristic in a White house gone wild with power.  In this our surreal Orwellian world, to torment is to be compassionate.  To crush the body and spirit of a living soul is apparently considered conservative, neoconservative.

Americans in the year 2007 are as Alice in Wonderland.  We observe ourselves in the looking glass, and we wonder.  Is up, down; is the mission accomplished, or is this a protracted exercise extended indefinitely into the future.  My child I sense you are confused and disheartened.  So too am I.  Take heed.  In time, sleep will come.  Dreams will fill your head.  My hope is you will forget all the misery I speak of, just as others have done so many times before you.

I remind you of what we each experience daily.  In recent years, the public has become dubious.  Most suspect the current Bush Administration, our nation’s leaders, falsify, tells half-truths, conceal, claim confidentiality, fabricate, or flounder.  Nonetheless, citizens remain complacent.  This recent October surprise is not treated as a revelation.  It does nothing to excite or incite us into authentic action.  As citizens, we do as we have done before, as you too shall do soon.  We sleep.  We utter barely a peep.

Granted, residents of the United States rant from the comfort of their over-stuffed chairs.  Countrymen complain as they, we choke on the fumes from our grand gas-guzzlers.  Yet, we drive.  Millions of people fly inter and intrastate.  Many travel abroad, just for fun, business too.  Americans continue to pollute the skies.  We resent the war for oil, the profits made on such a repugnant endeavor.  

Citizens carp as we contemplate the cost of combat.  The people are aware, that money could have been spent at home.  The nation mourns the loss of life, American deaths and at times, the passing of an Iraqi.  In cyberspace, communities clamor through their keyboards.  Then we rest on our laurels.

Progressives say they elected a Democratic Congress.  Certainly, that would make a difference.  The 110th Congress, with Democrats in control, claim the first one hundred days a success.  Yet, the war marches on.  

For soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, time stands still.  Families and friends hold their breath, fearful fathers, mothers, sons, and daughter will never return home.  Those that have returned to native shores are not the same.  Although, ‘enemy forces’ have not captured the American soldiers that found their way back to the States, the troops have been tortured.

Soldiers dressed in camouflage have stayed away too long.  Each day American men and women awake in a land far from their native shore.  Enlistees that once believed they had purpose; they could bring freedom to Iraqi have seen the cost of liberty is not cheap.  The price is far greater than these young persons ever expected to pay.  Children, barely out of high school have seen blood and the guts of their friends splattered on their shoes.  

War on the streets of Baghdad is nothing like the battles on a video screen.  Death, in the name of democracy, or G-d is not as holy as our leaders would want us to believe.  American troops have witnessed an effective insurgency, one beyond imagination.  Rebels that feel they have a cause are never as groomed in warfare as a trained soldier may be.  Speaking on the resourcefulness of Iraqi revolutionaries Sergeant Benjamin Flanders, Army National Guard states . . .

It was very effective, and the thing they have us beat at is the human intelligence side.  Maybe you can speak more to this, but they can use cruel and unusual methods in order to extract information from people that we couldn’t use.  There is sort of this, like, torture — that word is getting thrown around — well, the true torture is when you behead innocent civilians and throw them on the side of the road, which we came upon more than once.  That’s how they get their message across.

Torture is the topic of the day.  It was in 2005.  It has been the source of much discussion for years, ever since this strange, fantastic, dreamlike drama began.  You my dear sweetness might recall, we read fables together so long ago.  By candlelight, on another quiet evening, we gazed upon the pages and pondered.

I tucked those texts away.  There they sit safe on the bookshelf.  I sensed when we read these memorandums together they were too severe, too shocking; they upset you so.  My darling the words on those pages, the images they evoked were too much for me.  In truth, I was emotionally paralyzed by the verbiage.  What I envisioned weighed on my heart.  What have we wrought.  The havoc, the harm, one human might do to another.  It is unthinkable.  Perhaps, one day we will wish to review the references again.  For now, may they just remain close at hand.

Ah, but that was so long ago my adorable beloved.  We studied that ghastly folio when you were but a baby in my arms.  We cooed.  We cuddled.  In those, medieval days, the Dark ages, you and I were certain man would never be so cruel.  Thus, we drifted off to dreamland and trusted.  We had faith in our fair leader as we must today for the President, and his Cabinet, remain steadfast.  “We do not torture.”  The words ring out and have for what must be eons, no matter the evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, since the latest exposure the frequency of this rhetoric has increased.  The volume is vociferous.

Only days ago, George W. Bush proclaimed, America does not persecute, cause undue harm, harass, or forcefully torment those in custody.  The President postured, the United States does not torture.  Our government captures, confines, holds enemy combatants in custody, and castigates forcibly in order to safeguard Americans from harm.

Bush Says US ‘Does Not Torture’
By Jennifer Loven

Washington (AP) — President Bush defended his administration’s methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects on Friday, saying both are successful and lawful.

“When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them,” he said during a hastily called Oval Office appearance.  “The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them.  That’s our job.”

Bush volunteered his thoughts on a report on two secret 2005 memos that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects.  “This government does not torture people,” the president said.

The adorable Press Secretary, Dana Perino substantiates the declaration.  Defiantly, this wily and wondrous woman mesmerized the media as she denounced the conclusion, Americans torture.  Secret decrees aside, we would never do anything that was not in the best interest of the people.  United States Intelligence does as is necessary.  Their mission is as the President’s and the Justice Department’s, to protect and defend the nation.

In this new war, which is an unprecedented war, facing an enemy unlike we’ve ever faced before, sometimes — oftentimes the best information that you get is from the terrorists themselves.  They know where the other terrorists are hiding and what the other terrorists are planning.  And to win the war on terror we must be able to detain them, interrogate them, question them, and when appropriate, prosecute them — in America — when we capture them here in America and on battlefields around the world.  The policy of the United States is not to torture.  The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it.

But he had done everything within the corners of the law to make sure that we prevent another attack on this country, which is what we have done in this administration.  I am not going to comment on any specific alleged techniques.  It is not appropriate for me to do so.  And to do so would provide the enemy with more information for how to train against these techniques.  And so I am going to decline to comment on those, but I will reiterate to you once again that we do not torture.  We want to make sure that we keep this country safe.

“Safety” is the sanctuary that gives credence to what occurs in those corners of the law.  It is for security sake that we retain the President, our protector.  This magnificent man has decided to spread democracy aggressively, and we the people follow his lead, no matter where it takes us.  George W. Bush is the law.  He is the Commander-In-Chief.  If this compassionate conservative thinks the mission is worthwhile, apt, or accomplished, who are we to argue.

Soldiers may see the war effort differently.  However, if they do not understand the purpose and the profound contribution they make to the greater good of our society then they must be “phony soldiers.”  In a News Hour interview that aired just two years ago, we can sense the inner struggle a service man or woman might feel.  Patrick Resta, a former combat medic was among those that spoke.  Specialist Resta shared his thoughts.

Margaret Warner:: All right, let me get Patrick Resta in here.  And Patrick Resta, you were a combat medic with the Army National Guard.  How did all of this look from your end in terms of the U.S. troops’ tactics and, for that matter, equipment?  Did it appear to you that the U.S. approach was making progress?

Specialist Patrick Resta: No, it didn’t.  I was told I was going there to help the Iraqi people.  And then once I got there, I found out that I could not treat them unless they were about to die and the injury had been caused either directly or indirectly by U.S. forces, such as an IED going off or a car bomb going off or somebody being shot at a checkpoint, or something like that.  So I don’t think that’s really conducive to getting people on your side.

There was one night in particular where a local Iraqi walked to the gate of our camp after he had been beaten up pretty severely and pistol-whipped, and basically the people in town told him that if he came back to town they would kill him if they saw him in town again.  And he came up to our gate begging for help.  I went out there, you know, to dress his wounds and take care of him.

And he was begging me to save his life and he was just, you know, turned away and told, you know, “Go to the Iraqi police and they’ll help you,” which, you know, it’s after nightfall and the police aren’t functioning, especially not in my area.  So it was that kind of callous disregard that really set in what’s really going on over there for me.

Oh sweetness, I know this tale is hard to take.  I see you are troubled.  Breathe deeply my love.  Take heart.  Americans raged.  They released the anger they felt.  However, ultimately, they accepted.  There was not time then; nor are there sufficient days now to impeach this President or his Cabinet.  Congress cannot act.  Such measures might detract from the broader coalitions purpose, to get elected in 2008.

I understand dear heart.  There is much frustration.  Sleep tight.  This too shall pass.  Signing statements, secret judgments that allow for torture, substantiation, Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11, nothing seems to prompt the people to act.  Perchance they too are tired.  Rest your head on my shoulder love.  Soon, it will all be over.  

Yes, yes, the Administration misled the public; citizens recognize this.  However, no matter the depth of deception, most Americans choose to relent.  Our countrymen believe they can do nothing to stop what this White House does.  If a former Prisoner of War, one that avidly supports the war effort, cannot help this Administration see the light, what can a lowly citizen Progressive do.  Possibly, those on the Right that now reject the need for this battle are too embarrassed to express what they also observe.  The Emperor has no clothes.  Nor do we, the jesters.

My child, the words of Senator John McCain were strong.  He spoke from experience.  McCain challenged conventional wisdom and the Commander-In-Chief.  Yet, his profound assessment fell on deaf ears.  You recollect.

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable.  We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured.  The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort.  In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear–whether it is true or false–if he believes it will relieve his suffering.  

There was a glimmer of anticipation, as improbable as it was.  Publicly Progressive rejoiced.  Even the hardened delighted.  A legal decision was handed down in December 2004.  The Justice Department publicly proclaimed the deliberate infliction of severe physical pain is “abhorrent.”  Politically astute, no matter the Party, citizens truly welcomed this judgment.  Yet, we knew.  The most informed among our countrymen were well aware that as day turned to night, we could not deny, nothing was different.  Nor would it be in this nightmare of a novel.

Friend and foe alike were subject to torture.  George W. Bush and the neoconservatives were and are on a mission.  While they say it was accomplished, they also acknowledge without a win, we, the Americans will not leave the land we have destroyed.  A legacy is at stake.

Americans hold onto hope.  The President is expected to leave office in January 2009, G-d willing.  Thus, the people of this country are encouraged.

My sweet child, the electorate must purposely delude themselves.  Whimsy is the only action that might allow them to remain sane.  People do not wish to think of the pain they, the American people inflict on soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, women, and children at home and abroad.  Civilians prefer to ponder change will come when Bush exits the White House.  Thus, the people wait patiently.  They can, for Americans sleep well in their cozy beds.

Fluff the pillows.  Snuggle up in the comforter.  Bring another blanket into the room.  It is chilly out there.  Perhaps it is colder in our hearts.

When the Iraqi government felt a need to recess, for the temperature was one hundred and twenty degrees plus, Americans were angry.  Plump people seated in air-conditioned rooms expressed their disdain for those that struggle to work in a war torn country with little to no electricity.

Understandably, Americans are distracted.  They are excited.  An election is on the horizon.  A large percentage of the population longs for the 2008 appointment of a President.  Each state can hardly wait to participate.  The Primaries cannot come soon enough.  From Florida to California, every region wishes to be the first to pick the “winner.”  With a sigh I state, I believe we are all losers.  I wonder how we sleep.  I can only muse.

The peaceful among us, those that honor humanity, and the rules of Geneva Convention chose to forget what they, we, wish were not true.  Oh, they protested with vigor; however, ultimately, they had jobs to consider, bills to pay, a family to support.  Their strength was quelled by the demands of life.  Assertive pacifists understood as they have throughout the President’s term, this White House deliberately and delicately defines the term “torture.”  In America, the Bush Bunch is the medium and the message.

The White House and the Justice department were kind enough to hide the truth for a time.  Cognitive dissonance can be so wonderful; it allows for necessary rest.  Peaceniks needed time to feel settled, to sense that they made a difference.  The stress was too much for the non-combative.  They, my dear were losing sleep.  That would not do.  In a Capitalist society, the everyday chump must be fit, fresh, and ready to take on the most routine of days.

In times of war, production is important.  There are profits to consider.  Ah, my child.  Do not fret.  Perhaps, this tale too is but a dream.  Official opinions come and go.  I know you heard as I did, the good President Bush Defend[ed] CIA’s Clandestine Prisons.  He said, ‘We Do Not Torture.’  Well, perhaps we do, just a pinch.  Nonetheless, it was good to stay in the dark.  The light hurts my eyes.  Does it not bother you my little love?  What is it they say, “ignorance is bliss?”  Ah, to be joyous again.  However, the real news invades our space once more.

The Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret.  It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House.  Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said.  The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques.  But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said.  They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

Progressives did not doubt that this truth would be exposed, eventually.  Still, they do not act as they might.  Perchance, they are too war weary to do what they no longer think possible.  Too much time has passed.  In late 2007, the public says there is no time to impeach this President or his Vice.  Liberals listen to interviews.  We mumble and crumble.  We hear the words and yet, we sit still.

In defense of such an odious offense, Homeland Security Advisor, Fran Townsend speaks to the media.  Journalist, Wolf Blitzer of The Situation Room inquires of the torment inflicted on a previous guest.

Blitzer: We’re joined by the White House homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend.  She’s joining us from the White House.? ?You just heard this former inmate — this former detainee at Guantanamo Bay say I was beaten, shackled, spat at, kicked, punched, stripped naked, left in isolation sometimes naked, hog tied.??What do you say to that charge that he’s making?? ?In effect, experts say, that amounts torture.??

Fran Townsend, White House Homeland Security Advisor: OK.  Well, let’s back up and be very clear.  You’ve heard Dana Perino say it today.  You heard the president say it numerous times — the United States does not torture.??  Do we have a program???

Yes, we do.  It is — it is very limited.  There have been fewer than 100 people in it.  But it has pro — and the people who participate in that program are carefully trained, with more than 250 hours of training.  The average age of an interrogator is 43.  They’re not just interrogators who are part of the team.  There are also subject matter experts and individuals who are there to monitor the health and psychological well-being of the detainee himself.??

We start with the har — the least harsh measures first.  It stops after it — if someone becomes cooperative.?  ?And let’s be clear, Wolf, this — this is a — this is a program that was used when Abu Zubaydah was in custody and not being cooperative.  He had clearly been trained in resistance techniques to interrogation.  This — this — and these techniques…??

Blitzer: All right, well, let’s go through…??

Townsend: Well, wait a minute, Wolf.??

Blitzer: Yes.??

Townsend: These techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah.  It produced actionable intelligence that resulted in the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh.  This is — this — these programs stop attacks.??

Blitzer: All right, well, let’s go through some of the specifics and you tell us if you’re doing that.??For example, the “New York Times” says these memos authorized not only slaps to the head, but hours held naked in a frigid cell, days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music, long periods manacled in stress positions or the ultimate — water boarding.  “Never in history,” the “Times” says, “has the United States authorized such tactics.”  ?Is that true???

Townsend: Now, Wolf, obviously I’m not going to talk about each individual and specific technique that we used.  The director of Central Intelligence has talked to members of both Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate.  He — what he did was he understood this was not just a legal question, but there was a policy issue and there’s a political willingness question.??

Frankly, Wolf, if Americans are killed because we fail to do the hard things, the American people would have the absolute right to ask us why.

We inquire, then, we wait.  Americas do not move en masse to the streets of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, or Des Moines.  Small town USA remains quiet.  While boulevards are bustling, the sounds are not of crowds up in arms.  What we hear is commerce in action.

Congress may be in session; however, they continue to be disconnected.  Americans, distrustful and with reason, do not telephone House Leader Nancy Pelosi and state, “Impeachment must be on the table.”  Those proud to be labeled rebels excitedly await the 2008 election.  Most are so overjoyed by the prospect that they might throw the Bushies out.

I know my love, ’tis true, as the Democrats dance and dicker, people in foreign lands fight for their lives.  Again, the ability to hold two distinct beliefs simultaneously is quite the art.  It calms the soul and lives large amongst all of us.  Many think one of the three lovelies is their only hope.  

If George W. Bush is the sinister character in this drama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are the dynamic duo or trio.  Surely, one of these three will save the day.  Hillary is high in the polls.  She is strong, savvy, and brings Bill with her.  Obama supporters purport he is the one.  This man has style.  Barack is smooth, article.  People gravitate to him as they would a rock-star.  Edwards is as a prince to those enamored with his casual charismatic manner, his broad grin, and his profound gaze.  He has charm, chutzpah; and a wife that won the hearts of a nation.

People throughout the nation presume to believe they can pick a winner and will before the November 2008 general election.  Thus, impatient Americans gather together to support the sole candidate that they trust to prevail, regardless of the fact that the war will not end under her, or his leadership.

Dems can’t make guarantee on Iraq troops
By Beth Fouhy
Associated Press
Wed Sep 26, 9:26 PM ET

The three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they could not guarantee that all U.S. combat troops would be gone from Iraq by 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Nonetheless, the public does not pause or blink.  Presidential hopefuls pander in their attempts to explain what they truly meant, or at least some do.  It matters not.  When charmed, captivated, and determined to believe the Democrats must and will conquer the eyes glaze over.  Ear cavities close.  Brain cells become numb.  People refuse to give up that dream; the troops will come home if a Democrat is in the Oval Office.  

I suspect my love, those that truly yearn for peace long to sleep through the night.  That is the only thought that might explain why people that profess peace happily embrace the notion of five more years of battle.

I have to trust numerous Americans tossed and turned too frequently in the dark of night since America attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq.  I did.  Perchance, some are so desperate for relief they say, anyone but Bush.  I do believe war can wound the psyche, planet wide.  When soldiers and civilians die, I have to believe sensitive souls feel the pain, consciously or not.  

Perhaps, my beloved I am in error.  I observe brutal battles among those that claim to be Progressive.  In cyberspace, communities crumble under the weight of differences.  Defiance in the name of self-defense thrives.  On the street corners, I hear peace protesters scream with delight as they dodge and weave the barbs thrown at them.  Often, those that march in the name of harmony aggress against those that support the wars.

Maybe sweet one, some genuinely catch a snooze.  For a few, peace protests may be a crusade.  Professed pacifists, some, also wish for victory.  Possibly, they sleep when they sense blood in the water.  Could it be, for such Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals a win at any costs is the mantra they embrace just as those on the Right do?  I know not young one.  I only wonder how those that think, triumph is strength, sleep.  Perhaps the answer is obvious.  Americans when distressed; find respite in drugs.  A Pharmaceutical stupor might explain why we the people are willing to accept what we do.  

War through 2013 is now wonderful, practical, and Presidential.  Torture is not a high crime nor is it a misdemeanor.  When without slumber, a prolonged war is peace.  Poverty is prosperity.  What was grim is welcome.  Yes, my dearest, Americans have been down so long it is beginning to look like up and we have been up too long.

Oh precious one, I know this tale is distressing.  The trauma, the drama, the dreadful torture, and the time, it all slips away as we watch and wait for more what, Godot.  We heard the President, his Press Secretary, and the homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend say “America does not torture.”  We are not reassured.  Americans may ask, “How do they sleep at night?”  The answer must be as the question, “How do we!”

I wish you pleasant dreams little one.  Say your prayers.  “Now I lie me down to sleep.  Pray the Lord my soul to keep, for if one more person dies before I wake, if another individual is tortured as I slumber . . . Oh G-d, Allah, the Almighty, the greatest powers within the universe let the planet sleep.  Please bring serenity and peace to us all.  

Little love, I promise, tomorrow will be a better day.  I will share the story of a Don Quixote Dennis Kucinich.  The miracle man tilts at windmills.  He imagines what others think the impossible dream.  The Kucinich tale is inspirational.  The narrative uplifts the soul.  As the big business bullies battled with Dennis, decades ago, when they demanded he give up his principles and bow to them at the expense of the common people, dreamer Kucinich remained strong and resolute.  This magnificent man did not allow the brutes to intimidate him.  Muny Light remained the people’s utility.

Years later as a nation declared war.  Dennis Kucinich spoke only of “Strength through peace.”  This Presidential aspirant helps us believe in man’s humanity to his fellow man.  My child, you will wake and all will be well.  With Dennis Kucinich in your mind, heart, and in the Oval Office we can bring the troops home, cut the funds, and truly cast the President and Vice President aside.  If only I had read the Kucinich legend to you long ago, perhaps we could have removed the scourge  before they had done so much damage.  

Perchance, with the wisdom I share when you awake, my dear heart, you too will feel empowered.  Honey Bun, might the legend of Don Dennis Kucinich help encourage us all to impeach our present rulers, to be the change we imagine.  The time left in their term is already too long.  I cannot endure more tales of torture; can you?

The Tortuous Details.  The Drama.  The Trauma . . .

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations, By Scott Shane, David Johnston, and James Risen.  The New York Times. October 4, 2007

Bush Says US ‘Does Not Torture’ By Jennifer Loven.  Associated Press. October 5, 2007

Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11, Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital.  By William Hamilton.  Washington Post. Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

pdf Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11, Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital.  By William Hamilton.  Washington Post. Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

First One Hundred Days A Success.  By Michael Link.  The Democratic Party. April 16, 2007

Soldier’s Stories. Interview with Margaret Warner.  New hour.  Public Broadcasting Services. July 1, 2005

Soldier’s Stories. Interview with Margaret Warner.  New hour.  Public Broadcasting Services. July 4, 2005

Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church, By Matt Richtel.  The New York Times. Sunday, October 7, 2007

Dems can’t make guarantee on Iraq troops. By Beth Fouhy.   Associated Press Wednesday, September 26, 9:26 PM ET

Clinton Widens Lead In Poll  By Jon Cohen and Anne E. Kornblut.  Washington Post. October 3, 2007; Page A01

Bush Defends CIA’s Clandestine Prisons, ‘We Do Not Torture,’ President Says.  By Michael A. Fletcher.  Washington Post. Tuesday, November 8, 2005; Page A15

In Latest Poll, Good News for Both Clintons By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen.  Washington Post. Thursday, October 4, 2007; A01

The Media’s New Rock Star, By Howard Kurtz.  Washington Post.?Tuesday, December 12, 2006; 7:42 AM

John Edwards Wins Over Audience At First MTV/MySpace Presidential Dialogue, By Gil Kaufman.  MTV Networks. September 27, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino.  Office of the Press Secretary. October 4, 2007

The Situation Room; Transcripts. Cable News Network.October 4, 2007

pdf Standards of Conduct For Interrogation Under 18 USC.  Memorandum From Albert Gonzales. August 2002

Dec. 2, 2002: Defense Department Memo Regarding “Counter-Resistance Techniques” Washington Post.

GTMO Interrogation Techniques.

Potentiasl Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations.

Humane Treatment of a1 Qaeda and Taliban Detainee.

U.S. Dept. of Justice Memo To Alberto R. Gonzales, White House Counsel. February 7, 2002

Letter from U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to Pres. Bush.

Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees.

Waiting for Godot.  Theatre History.

John Lennon – Give Peace A Chance

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

In Iraq, the war is waged.  Bombs and bullet soar overhead.  Often a missile lands, a mine explodes, and people perish.  Daily life in the Persian Gulf life is perilous.  I claim to care, and in actuality, I do, deeply.  However, a casual observer would never know.  I live well with the knowledge that those in Iraq die daily in heart, mind, body, and soul.  The contrast between the quality of my life and the life of those in the Middle East haunts me.
There must be some action I can take, a movement that makes a difference.  I do what I think reasonable.  I protest.  I stand on corners and advocate peace.  Nonviolent marches are amongst my missions.  I publish tomes.  The topic is end hostilities, live in harmony.  I plead to members of Congress, “Cut the funds.”  Stop the war.  Bring the troops home.  Let the Iraqi people create tranquility in a manner best for them.  Yet, as I protest, I ponder.  Perhaps, much to my distress, I remain ineffective.  My life choices reflect an active apathy.  I must consider what I accept in my daily existence.

Each day I awake.  The sun shines on my face.  A gentle breeze blows through my window and across the bed sheets.  I look around and see the luxury that is my life.  As an American, I am not affluent.  I am not even average.  My income perhaps, is paltry.  Yet, life is good . . . here in the States.

In the early morn, in the calm of my home, I begin my day.  I disrobe.  I place my pajamas in the hamper, or immediately put them in the washing machine.  I press a button and the electricity flows through the cables.  Water enters the basin through hoses.  I wash my sleepwear in a way most persons in Iraq cannot.  I pitter and patter without a care, or at least appearances might suggest I have none.  In truth, I have great angst, not for the calm that is my day, but for what the sunlight hours and the evening darkness must be like for those in war zones.

I iron.  I bathe; I dress.  My clothes are clean and pressed.  I prepare for work, play, for hours of consumption.  I do all that I can to maintain the “norm’ that is America.

Outside the birds sing.  The squirrels scatter.  Animals gather their food with delight.  The butterflies and bees find nourishment in the flowers.  Mine is a fine life.

While I may not be wealthy, I own an automobile.  I put gas in the tank and drive freely about town.  I listen to people complain of the cost of petroleum fuel, and I wonder.  The price is dear.  People die so that we might toddle about.  I go hither and yon.  Yet, as I do, I ruminate.  How might my actions reflect my disdain for what we, Americans do and do not.

Some say, the war effort is not done in their name.  I disagree.  The battle is mine.  My inertia allows the combat to continue.  My sense that I cannot influence the military industrial complex that controls the battle defines me as complicit.  My belief that I am but one small, insignificant being, and cannot change what Congress or the President does, is counter to my faith in people.  That I allow myself to invest in a world establishes all I disdain demonstrates that I am part of the problem and not the solution.

If I do little more than protest in word and deed, while I continue to live my life with glee, then what have I really done to make a statement?  As a single person, perchance, I do not have the power to be heard above the fray.  Nevertheless, I can try to make a difference.  Indeed, I must do more than endeavor.  I must organize; bring people together, so that the exertion of one will have the effect of many.

I must generate human energy, excite the empathetic sensibility that lies still within each of us.  I must do all that I can to bring the troops home, and ensure that the allied forces exit Iraq.  If I can help make an impression globally, then perhaps the war will end.

I propose we, the people of this planet take our power back.  I invite you dear reader to consider the wisdom Garret Keizer expresses in a Harpers notebook.  Might we prepare for peace and act in love.  The Specific suggestion: [A] General strike.  

Please ponder the possibility.  On Election Day, cast a ballot for regime change.  Act to end the war.  Refuse to work; do not help maintain the status quo.  Stop shopping.  Do not serve the combative corporate structure that funds this armed engagement.  The time is now, not in 2013 as Presidential hopefuls claim.  We must move as one if we are to live together.

I hope to see you on the streets of America on November 6, 2007.  Collectively, let us sing and act as though the elusive dream is possible.  We can “Give Peace A Chance.”

We can act in love, work for peace.  What we have done to this date has not helped bring peace.  Let us stand tall, stand strong, sing and serve the cause of peace.  Profits can wait; the world cannot!

References . . .

Specific suggestion: General strike, By Garret Keizer.  Harpers. October 2007

pdf Specific suggestion: General strike, By Garret Keizer.  Harpers. October 2007

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Health care is in the news again.  This week, Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton proposed the latest cure for what ails this country.  Clinton declared medical insurance must be mandatory.  Under her plan, all Americans will be covered.  Days later, President George W. Bush spoke of how he believes we can best heal the ills of impoverished children in this country.  Mister Bush proclaimed parents must pay for the care of their progeny.  The medical system must remain in the hands of private industry.  There are no handouts here.  If Moms and Dads have income, they must provide for their children.  While the plans may seem drastically different, they are very similar.  

In each, the “citizen” is still basically a “consumer,” not part of the commonweal Thomas Paine spoke of in 1776 when he explained, to ensure shared stability, government and society must be intertwined.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world.  In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought.

A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.

Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way.  Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

People rarely relate to the idea of death or serious illness.  Most of us imagine we are immortal.  As a child, many believe in fairy tales.  Some trust a fairy Godmother will come and care for them when they are ill.  The Wizard lives in Oz, and he too can heal a heart, or mend an injured brain.  In our youth we are certain, “There is no place like home.”  Mom and Dad will keep us safe and warm.  Parents provide food, shelter, and when we do not feel well, they will take us to a capable physician.  The compassionate doctor will cure our pain.  Ah, the miracle of medical science is better than fancy.  

As adults, we accept there is a need for medical care in our lives.  After a certain age, we understand; we are mere mortals.  Accidents occur.  Infirmity is inevitable.  Dream as we might that we are and will remain healthy throughout the course of our lives, as years go by we learn everlasting good health is not likely to be.  There is no assurance that we will always be fit.  We understand that we must do what we can to prevent illness and injury.  

A mature mind grasps that mishaps happen.  As an individual, we recognize health insurance is a must.  Still, in the Wild West, independent-minded Americans are reluctant to insure every individual.  The notion of natural liberty negates the necessity we experience as a society.  Much as we would wish to believe I am separate from my neighbor, none of us are.  If my fellow citizen cannot care for himself, the cost of his illness, injury, and demise will be mine to bear.  Just as I need to garner support from my friend to acquire funds for my needed health insurance, so too does my brother, my sister, and their child.

Most civilized nations realize the dire need for universal medical indemnity.  Other countries have established plans to ensure that preventative measures will be taken, whenever possible, to stave off sickness.  Traditionally, in America, each man, woman, and apparently, child must fend for themselves.

There is talk; perhaps, it is time to change.  Nonetheless, the conversation is convoluted.  Some speakers say those that are happy need not consider how their choice to stay with a plan might affect another.  The words of founding father Thomas Paine have not helped Hillary Clinton or George Bush to appreciate every American is part of a broader society.  Clinton and Bush are not alone.  Virtually every Presidential candidate and citizen mirrors the idea of independence as they discuss health insurance.

In this tome, I could continue to analyze the oratories, as others have done before me, or I could pen, as I believe I must.  As political campaigns progress and people posture, I realize I need to disclose more.  I thought to broach the discussion more than a year ago, and I did, although, in truth, I was evasive.  

This topic is an embarrassing one for me.  Since the age of seventeen, when I first left my parents home to live on my own, I became a national statistic.  I was one of the shunned, those that suffer in silence.  I was a person most Americans look down upon.  I remained so for all but twelve months of my adult life.  I was not among the acceptable for all but a scant time.  When I was covered, it was only for a few weeks at a time.  For all but those periods, I did not have medical insurance.  

On occasion, I would have to divulge this reality outside of a physicians’ office.  Those that heard of my plight were surprised.  Subtly, statements were made.  Friendly faces turn sour when they learn that you have no health care.  

My dentist knew.  Granted, some health care packages do not include dental plans.  However, most provide a bit of protection.  I had none.  I had to tell my sweet dental care physician.  Paul pleaded with me.  Take a job, any job, that had excellent benefits, dental in particular.  

I am a very well educated person.  As are many Americans that have no insurance.  I worked in many prestigious places and held positions that one would think included health insurance as part of the standard package.  In one University teaching assignment I learned more than a decade later, an offer of coverage is not required although it is available to those that know they can request it.  

In that situation and other similar circumstances, people are purposely not placed on tenure tracks for it is too costly to the college.  A large portion of the faculty, while teaching the same number of hours as a full time professors are considered only “part-time.”  Contracts are renewed.  Workers Unions do not assist employees such as I.  Nonetheless, people assume they do.  

Much is taken for granted.  We all have appearances to uphold.  Even if the illusion is maintained only to save ourselves from what we fear, what we project others accept.  At times, even the most knowledgeable among us is confronted with stark realities they never imagined.

The majority of people we [Authors of Uninsured in America, Susan Starr Sered and Rushika Fernandopulle] met in our travels across the country lack consistent access to health care of reasonable quality despite having been employed all or most of their adult lives.  Approximately one-third of the people with whom we spoke are well educated but have had the misfortune to end up in jobs that do not offer insurance: substitute teachers, adjunct professors, part-time social workers.  These Americans have not chosen to be uninsured; rather, their employers have found it cost-effective to reduce the number of permanent full-time positions while maintaining an unprotected pool of workers whose jobs by definition do not offer benefits.

In America, in a free enterprise Capitalist system, costs are the central concern.  Profits are primary.  This is true for publicly traded companies and for private or state funded institutions.  People are only a means for principal gains.  Perhaps, that is the problem.  In a market economy, products are sold.  Image is everything.  We all wish to appear well and well-off.  That may be the reason that millions of Americans do not speak of their health care situation.  They, we, do not wish to seem unstable, inadequate, or unworthy, although we may feel as though we are.  I definitely did.

As a mature individual, I contribute to society.  Often, I maintained and sustained a job that was somewhat secure, as much as anyone might make that claim in modern America.  I am a professional person.  Postgraduate degrees adorn my walls, or they would if I ever chose to hang them.  Yet, I did not have the where-with-all, nor the worth of a person with health insurance.  My employer did not pay for my care, and I certainly could not afford the benefit.

On the radio and television, we hear the numbers.  As many as forty-seven million Americans are uninsured.  At times, I have heard figures far higher.  In periodicals, “average” Americans read the data.  The assumption is, “those” people are uneducated, low wage, service workers.  Those in the mainstream think, surely, no one similar to me, would be without a health care plan.  

The homeless, the impoverished, the immigrants, these individuals must be the persons included in the tens of millions without medical coverage.  At least that is what Rushika, a physician specializing in health policy, thought.  This medical expert turned researcher and author was certain public programs must attend to the needs of those without health insurance.  She never imagined what might be true.  Most people do not.  Those without health care do not speak of their predicament.  Persons satisfied with provisions medical services provide have no reason to ponder the possibilities, let alone the realities others face.

(W)hen Rushika, a physician specializing in health policy, met Susan, an anthropologist who recently had returned to the United States after living for two decades in Israel and Japan, countries that have national health care programs.  With the fresh eyes that an outsider sometimes can bring to a situation most of us take for granted, Susan asked Rushika: “Where are the bodies?  If forty million Americans don’t have health insurance, there must be a lot of bodies.  I would think that American cities would look like Delhi or Calcutta, where trucks collect corpses from the streets each morning.  Where is America hiding its uninsured sick and dying citizens?”

Rushika initially responded with standard answers: We have government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.  Many counties run clinics with sliding-scale fees.  Our hospitals offer charity care to indigent patients.  And, with the support of the Bush administration, churches have opened up faith-based clinics.

Yet, when the two of us began to look more closely at the statistics, we saw that these responses did not speak to the actual experiences of many people in our country.  In 2003, Medicaid covered only slightly more than half of Americans whose family income was below 200 percent of the poverty line (that is, below $36,800 for a family of four).  Public clinics typically are so overwhelmed that the wait for an appointment can be several months.

Hospitals often fail to inform patients that charity programs exist, instead simply billing their uninsured patients and turning their accounts over to collection agencies.  In fact, although the government requires not-for-profit hospitals to offer charity care, many hospitals avoid doing so by redefining the uncollectable debt as “charity care.”  And faith-based clinics, which were touted as a compassionate safety net to take the place of big government bureaucracies, usually seem to flounder, seeing patients only a few evenings each week and relying on volunteer physicians to squeeze in a couple of clinic hours a month on top of their already overflowing private practices.

Oh, how I know this well.  I sat in many a waiting room for hours on end.  At times, what might be a hour out of the day for those will medical insurance would be an all day visit for me.  The uninsured, and even underinsured, are patient people.  They have to be.  “Beggars cannot be choosers.”  Perhaps, those with little or no coverage are so grateful for a pittance, or they are as mortified as I was.  Possibly, we are resigned to what is.  

We, the forty-four, forty-seven, or fifty-three million, [I have heard each of these statistics bandied about over the years] feel powerless against the Medical and Pharmaceutical industries.  Collectively, or as individuals, there seems little we can do to battle the big businesses that employ us.  We need our paycheck to purchase the basics.  Food, clothing, and shelter are necessary to survive.  Health care, well, as long as I am alive I can endure.  The “no pain, no gain” attitude permeates the American culture.  I am tough; I can take it.  Boys do not cry.  Women are willing to make sacrifices.  Some say, “I can wait.”  “I am fine.”

Years ago, while writhing in pain, sweat poured from every part of my body.  Although I am often cold and covered in clothing, I took every garment off,.  The fabric irritated my flesh.  I curled up into a ball.  My hope was this primal position would relief the distress.  Oh, to return to the womb, or perhaps perish.  Either would be better than what I experienced.  I lay on the floor.  I moaned; I groaned.  None of this is “normal” for me.  After a time, the heat that rose from my torso diminished.  The ache in my abdomen did not.

Suddenly I had chills.  I felt frozen.  I covered myself in down.  I moved, stayed still.  Nothing lessened the sting, the sensation, or the unimaginable, intolerable torment that came from within.  I moved to a hammock.  The loose support I though might reduce the misery.  It did not.

Finally, after seven hours I called my family physician.  A pre-existing condition, another unrelated affliction was the reason I knew of a doctor to telephone.  The other ailment was also a reason I feared I would not qualify for medical insurance coverage.  That aside, my internist suggested I call the paramedics.  I could not.  I was able to dial 911, just as I had my doctor.  However, I knew if I asked for assistance from a medical service, there would e a charge.  I could not afford that.

Hours more passed.  I fell in and out of consciousness.  Nine hours after the first twinge I realized I must seek help.  Nine-One-One to the rescue, or so I hoped.  The emergency medical transporters arrived.  They drove me to the nearest hospital.  All I could think of was the cost.  The recompense to drive my aching body less than a mile down the road was approximately one thousand dollars.  Of course, I would be remiss if I did not state, the paramedics monitored my blood pressure before we drove off.  There is more to this story.  The details, drama, and trauma abound.  I might tell other tales instead.  However, I use this one only to illustrate the depth of reluctance to request medical attention when an individual has no insurance.

Many have a narrative to offer.  Anecdotes, such as this, in America, are not uncommon.  We, as a nation know there are problems with the current system.  We have understood this for years.  Television, radio, and written reports are abundant, and were long ago, long before this dialogue that aired in 2002.

Gwen Ifill: Today’s new census report boils down the health care affordability crunch into cold, hard numbers.  The number of Americans without health insurance keeps rising, but last year so did household income.  Here to discuss the reasons why and the policy implications of these findings is Susan Dentzer of our Health Unit.  The unit is a partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

So, Susan, a 5 percent increase in the number of uninsured, why?

Susan Dentzer, News Hour Health Correspondent: Gwen, what we see is that, five years into an economic recovery and expansion since the recession of 2001, and six years of rising health uninsurance numbers, we see that basically what’s happening is the performance of the economy and workers’ wages and what’s going on in health insurance are wildly different tracks.

Health insurance premiums are still rising about 7 percentage points a year; that’s more than double workers’ wages and more than double the rate of inflation.  So, what’s happening is that health insurance is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans.  Concomitant with this, many businesses are dropping health insurance coverage because they find it unaffordable.

Gwen Ifill: So it’s unaffordable for Americans and for the people who they work for?

Susan Dentzer: Exactly, for businesses who are in many cases providing, contributing towards that coverage.  In fact, in this most recent set of data, we see that fewer than 60 percent of workers now are covered by employer-provided insurance, 59.7 percent.

So, what’s happening is that health insurance is becoming more expensive, less affordable.  Employers are dropping coverage.  And as a consequence, what we see out the other end is 2.2 million more Americans uninsured in the most recent year, a total of almost 9 million more Americans now uninsured since 2000.

Affordability problems remain

Gwen Ifill: But the same time, in the same report we hear that household income has gone up.  So, doesn’t that make it more affordable?

Susan Dentzer: Well, it’s gone up modestly.  The real median income rose in the most recent period measured — again, this was from 2005 to 2006 — by 1.1 percent to $48,500.  But again, a 1 percentage point real increase in incomes doesn’t come anywhere near making a 7 percent compounded rate of growth of health insurance more affordable for families.

And in particular, we see this happening now, not just in low-income households, where it’s very difficult to afford — the average family health insurance policy now is pretty close to $12,000 a year.  Imagine a family earning $48,500 affording $12,000 a year.  But when you look even higher up the income scale, 1.4 million of the people who became uninsured in this most recent period had incomes of $75,000 and more, household incomes.

So it says that even higher-income families now are having enormous difficulty affording insurance and likely to be working for employers who are dropping coverage.

Still we sit settled with what is.  We, as individuals, do not wish to show our worry, our fears, or our shaky status.  The thought of what might occur, if we allow ourselves to think of our personal situation, might drive any of us insane.  Mortality may be on the minds of those without coverage.  However, unless there is a need to speak of such, why would we?  The fact that I did not have indemnity against illness or injury was not a subject I felt at ease to discuss.

The idea of a life threatening illness deeply effects those that have what they hope is adequate medical care.  In truth, most of us know of someone, who lost his or her life savings to illness.  The cause for half the bankruptcies in this nation can be traced back to medical maladies.

I could site the statistics with glee.  I trust if you chose to, you too could offer chapter and verse.  There are facts and figures aplenty.  Formulas and figures may vary greatly depending on the source, the situation, and sadly, the scheme that the spokesperson wishes to promote.  Nevertheless whichever truth we wish to adopt there are statistics to share.

I know if we engage an exchange of raw information it is merely an intellectual endeavor.  For decades, in discussions with those I did not know well, data helped me maintain distance.  I dared not state what was my truth.  I had no health insurance.  I can vouch for the validity of these figures.  For this is, was, and I fear may be my life forever and a day.

The number of people without health insurance was 46.6 million in 2005, compared to 45.3 million in 2004, and 41.2 million in 2001 (see table below).

The percentage of Americans without insurance rose to 15.9 percent in 2005, higher than the 15.6 percent level in 2004 and much higher than the 14.9 percent level in 2001.

The percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years.

The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000.

Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes.  Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000.

This is the slant Americans wish to accept.  The problem is greatest among the poor.  If we focus on the failures of the pitiable, blame the people that we wish to believe have not worked as hard as we have, we can ignore the essential truth.  The gap between $25,000 and $75,000 is large and perhaps, this gorge is where millions of uninsured live.  

Average families, with children are severely affected by the current health care crisis.  The Number of Uninsured Children Rises.  “Census Figures Show 8.3 Million Youths Lacked Health Coverage in 2005.”  Two, almost three years later, the figures are higher.  In 1997, Congress created the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan.  The intent was to provide health coverage for children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford insurance on their own.  Often these families have incomes that far exceed the poverty level.  While the program was popular for well over a decade, the number of uninsured children swells.

The most potent force behind the recent increase in uninsured children, experts said, is the decline in employer-sponsored health insurance as rising costs prompt businesses to raise premiums or cut coverage.

The latest census figures show that a record 46.6 million Americans had no health insurance in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004.  Among those who did have coverage, fewer were receiving it through their jobs.  In 2001, for instance, 62.6 percent of Americans had employer-sponsored coverage.  By last year the figure was 59.5 percent, census figures show.

Politicians do not wish to discuss the depth and details of this scenario or those that surround it.  People at every income level are losing health insurance coverage.  Adults and children are affected by the inefficient and expensive system.  Medical service providers place profits above people.  Monetary concerns dictate more than a desire to care.

Days ago, George W. Bush justified his intent to veto a Bill that would help provide health care for those most in need.  Our dependant children, the little ones, those sweet souls that are our future, and may be reminiscent of our past, apparently, according to the President are too costly.  

As mothers and fathers unexpectedly lose their health care coverage, we continue to deny the dilemmas that affect our society.  Americans are in dire straits.

If we are to be honest as we assess our circumstances, we must acknowledge that those mothers and fathers who bring home salaries of 75,000 are frequently no longer able to live a comfortable life.  Permanence is a precarious term.  The expression “benefits” belies the truth that many of us live with.  Penury, is but a pay check away.  While thirty-seven million people, or about one in eight Americans live below the poverty line, the number of uninsured Americans rose by more than 1 million people.  This includes more than 360,000 children added to the rolls.  The presumed new total of uninsured person in 2006 is 47.5 million, give or take.

Ray Suarez: For a closer look at the growing numbers of the uninsured, I’m joined by our health correspondent, Susan Dentzer.

And, Susan, unemployment has remained low.  Household income ticked up slightly.  So why that increase in the number of uninsured?

Susan Dentzer, NewsHour Health Correspondent: Ray, I think what it says is that having a job in America is increasingly becoming detached from the question of whether or not you have health insurance.

We see now, as you said, economic recovery since 2001 has created numbers of new jobs.  But, in fact, it hasn’t necessarily translated into more coverage for many people and, in fact, quite the opposite.

We see employment-based coverage continuing to crumble, and that’s the real story of the rise in the health un-insurance numbers that were released yesterday, that the number of people who became uninsured, 1.3 million, the driving force behind that was the loss of employer-based coverage in the private coverage market.

Ray Suarez: Is there such a thing as a typical uninsured person?  Or has a lot of that growth come from one kind of worker?

Susan Dentzer: Well, what we’ve known for a long time is that four out of five people without health insurance are workers or in families where somebody is working full time.  So the vast majority of the uninsured have, for a long time, been working people, primarily lower paid people, and also, to a large degree, Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, blacks.

But what we saw most recently — and in 2005, the numbers released yesterday bear this out — increasingly we’re seeing also a loss of coverage in households and families earning $50,000 a year and more, in the middle class.  And so, that shows that the loss of coverage really is hitting a broad swath of American workers.

It’s tending to be workers who are working for small businesses, people who are working in kind of cyclical-driven industries that go up and down with the economy.  But by and large, it’s hitting a broad swath of workers.  And the driving force behind that is the cost of health insurance coverage.

Care for single persons soar.  For Moms and Dads the price of health care is high.  Children, while wonderful, are a costly commodity.  The truth of this is more evident when we concede, jobs are not secure.  Even careers rarely last a lifetime.  Home loans are hefty.  The price of gas, food, and the attire needed for work alone is outrageous.  Play money?  What is that.  Little is discretionary; less is disposable.  Dollars are tight.  Each expense increases daily.  The cost of living coupled with the fact that employers are no longer willing to bear the burden of benefits makes what was once a sizable income barely adequate.  

Medical care co-payments alone can contribute to an impending crisis.  Prescription disbursement can be dear.  Pills are pricey; injections exorbitant.  The family budget in America today is fragile enough.  Additional expenditures for health care seem unnecessary in comparison to other considerations.

We resign ourselves, for most of us know not how to stop what politicians endorse.  As political campaigns progress and people posture, I realize I needed to reveal more than I wished to.  I thought to broach the discussion more than a year ago, and I did, although, in truth, I was evasive.  Each time I read statistics on the tens of millions Americans who are uninsured I am not surprised.  You, dear reader many have noticed as I frequently have, the numbers vary greatly depending on the source, the situation, and sadly, the scheme

In February, Presidential hopeful John Edwards introduced his health care plan.  Many Americans cheered.  Finally, someone was willing to discuss Universal Health Care.  

I understand Edwards may have been first to offer a “health” plan; however a “first strike” policy, is not always best.  We must realize if we adopt his plan or Clinton’s, nothing will change.  Big businesses will still control the health care community.  Might we read what John Edwards expressed as he documented his plan.  I share a snippet from the John Edwards website.  I think you might find it informative.  There is often more than initially appears behind the rhetoric.

Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Care Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it.  Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them.  This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price.  Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

In the Iowa debate, held September 20, 2007, candidate Edwards explained he must endorse the agenda Hillary Clinton proposed.  It is virtually identical to his agenda.  Bravo!  I admire the admission.  Undeniably, I do not embrace either proposal.  Hillary insists we must all have medical care coverage.  Can she imagine what a strain that might put on persons such as I,  In the past and now, discretionary income is not part of my repertoire.  I am unsure how to define “disposable” dollars.  Are these the pennies that I accidentally drop and then scrounge around for as I desperately attempt to pay my bills.  Perchance, a NewsHour discussion might help to explain.

The costs
Ray Suarez: Well, you talk about this affecting even higher than the median-income workers.  If they wanted to buy their own health insurance, what are we talking about as the cost to buy health insurance?

Susan Dentzer: The average health insurance premium for a family now exceeds $11,000 a year.  It’s higher than the earnings that you could earn, earning a minimum-wage job.  It’s about a quarter of that median family income, so it’s a huge, huge dent in the pocketbook.

And it’s because of that rising cost that so many businesses are dropping coverage.  Just since the year 2000, according to a survey done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, we’ve lost about — it’s gone from about 69 percent of employers offering coverage to their workers.  We’re now down to about 59 percent, just in the period since 2000.

And, again, the reason by and large has been the cost of health insurance.  Although the cost is growing now at a lower rate than it was earlier in this decade, it’s still growing annually at about two to three times the rate of inflation overall.

And for some small businesses, premiums can still go up 20, 30, 40 percent a year.  That’s pushing a lot of businesses out of the business of offering health insurance to their workers.  And to the degree they pass those costs along to workers, sometimes workers are passing up the coverage that is offered to them by their firms.

Ray Suarez: Now, even with those rising costs, if you look at where the action has been on answering the needs of the uninsured, in state legislatures and national government, there’s been a lot of emphasis on children, yet this time we saw 361,000 more children uninsured.  Why?

Susan Dentzer: And that’s exactly what makes these numbers so troubling to so many people.  Since 1997, as you said, when we enacted the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, coverage has mostly been growing for kids.  The deliberate efforts on the parts of states to reach out to low-income families and pull children into both SCHIP coverage, as it’s known — State Children’s Health Insurance Program — and Medicaid.

What seems to have happened in the last couple of years is that states have reversed that.  There are fewer outreach efforts; there are more barriers being erected to enrollment of people in those programs.
In some instances, it’s cost — there are deliberate efforts to make it harder to re-enroll once you’re already enrolled in the programs.  So the net effect seems to be pushing people, children in particular, who are qualified for these programs out.

And that’s especially troubling, because we know that there are probably 4 or 5 million uninsured children still out there who are qualified for these programs but not enrolled.  So to the degree we’re adding to the pool of people that are qualified but not enrolled, it’s a serious problem.

Life tells me that as long as medicine is business, we, the people, human beings whose existence is fragile, will be viewed as nothing more than consumers.

I long for a planet where people embrace the construct of mans’ humanity to his fellow man, woman, and child.  As the Presidential aspirants attempt to convince us that they are not affected by the financial agendas of their supporters, I sigh in frustration.  My own emotional reaction to such duplicity leaves me lost for words.  Thus, I turn to Jamie Court.  I cannot explain my concerns better than Mister Court did in a recent editorial.  I invite your review of the commentary aired on Market Place Morning.

Jamie Court: What do Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hillary Clinton all have in common? They all support the government forcing the middle class to buy a private health insurance policy — but none want to limit how much insurers can charge or spend.

And that’s the problem.  Mandatory private health insurance proposals are all stick and no carrot.

The average health insurance premium for a family of four is just over 12 grand per year.  What middle-class family making, say, 60,000 bucks per year can afford that bill?

What we need is the carrot of affordable health care.  That means government standardizing charges by insurers, doctors, hospitals and drug companies.  No more $6 Tylenol in the hospital.

The reason health insurance is so unaffordable today is that no one is watching the costs.  With standardization, insurance would be cheaper and people would want to buy it — not have to because the government is threatening them with a tax penalty.

Oh wait, I can hear the plaintive cry of the free market.  You can’t tell a doctor, insurer, hospital or drug company what’s reasonable to charge.  That’s socialism.  Well, how reasonable then is it to tell every American you have to buy a product whose cost is obscene if you want to be a U.S. citizen?  Isn’t that corporate socialism?

Mandatory health insurance is a government bailout of a free market that’s failed its customers.  Fewer people and employers are buying private health insurance because it costs so much more and delivers so little.

So rather than let customers demand a new and better product, politicians are forcing us to buy it.  Whatever happened to creative destruction?

There’s a business plan of course.  Mitt, Arnold, and Hillary each received six or seven-figure campaign contributions from the insurance industry.  The plan is insurers send the bill and we have to pay it.

Jamie Court is president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

We might look at the Obama plan; however, few think his agenda meets the needs of the growing uninsured population.  More than one pundit or publication has stated the Obama “program” is sparse on substance and broad on rhetoric.  For some, a careful read of the details, reinforces a need to question.  Answers are not forthcoming in the Obama agenda.

Obama, who is among the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered few new ideas in laying out his plan to expand health insurance and to greatly reduce health-care costs.  Instead, he cast his proposal in the themes that have defined his candidacy: optimism and a desire to move beyond partisan politics.  He offered ideas that have long been proposed to solve one of the country’s most vexing problems: increasing subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance but do not qualify for public programs, spending more federal money on disease prevention and making health records electronic.

Personally, the only Single Payer Plan which Dennis Kucinich presents speaks to me, the common person.  As I peruse a commentary that compares and contrasts the essence of each proposal, I believe the essential concerns are covered in the Kucinich proposal.  I am not alone in this view.

Kucinich is right on healthcare
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Boston Globe
August 29, 2007

Dennis Kucinich rarely gets much airtime in Democratic presidential debates.  That was underscored recently when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos called on him in an Iowa forum to talk about God.  Kucinich said, “George, I’ve been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying to God you were going to call on me.” . . .

With poll numbers at 1 or 2 percent, the Ohio congressman is the nudge kicking at the knees of the Democratic Party to offer more than incremental change.  He deserves more attention than he gets.  On healthcare, he says what Americans believe, even as his rivals rake in contributions from the industry.

In a CNN poll this spring, 64 percent of respondents said the government should “provide a national insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes,” and 73 percent approve of higher taxes to insure children under 18.  Those results track New York Times and Gallup polls last year, in which about two-thirds of respondents said it is the federal government’s responsibility to guarantee health coverage to all Americans.

Such polls allow Kucinich to joke that, far from being in the loony left, “I’m in the center.  Everyone else is to the right of me.”  More seriously, in a recent visit to the Globe, he accused the other Democratic candidates of faking it on healthcare reform.

“One of the greatest hoaxes of this campaign — everyone’s for universal healthcare,” Kucinich said.  “It’s like a mantra.  But when you get into the details, you find out that all the other candidates are talking about maintaining the existing for-profit system.”  

‘Tis true; as long as health care remains in the hands of big business, the Pharmaceuticals, Insurers, Health Maintenance Organizations, and Preferred Providers will continue to profit.  If we embrace the Edwards, Obama, or Clinton plan, health care costs will continue to rise.  The quality of services will deteriorate.  

Granted, I hear the concerns.  However, I also understand the research.  Dear reader, you may recall the change in health care considerations after the Harry and Louise advertisements were aired.  This provocative and cute commercial funded by the Health Insurance Association of America [HIAA] altered public opinion.  Citizens ready to embrace Universal Health Care proposals were convinced the possibility was nothing but a problem.  

Few welcome change.  Thus, it is easy to accept a fictional anecdote that helps affirm or remind us, our life is “pretty good” or at least good enough, and indeed, it is for those with excellent health care coverage.  However, that benefit is fragile.

In my own life, on many occasions, I spoke with individuals that live elsewhere.  Those in countries that provide universal health care to all citizens may complain in a moment of frustration.  Nonetheless, when they compare their circumstances with those in America, they rejoice.  

One unfortunate soul, mentioned a family member became ill while on vacation in the States.  She shared horror upon horror.  The hospital was ill equipped to care for her kin.  The charge was beyond anything she and her relatives could comprehend.  They could not possibly afford to pay the bills.  After she told the tale, she explained, her family decided they have no desire to travel to America again.  To politely paraphrase the assessment this native of another nation, the health care system in America is ‘heartless, ‘inhumane,’ and the costs were ‘extremely inflated.’  

Indeed, the price and the problems connected with receiving reasonable health care are daunting.  Steve Burd, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Safeway supermarkets learned this from personal experience.

(The younger Burd) he works hard to keep in top physical shape.  But because he injured his back a few months ago, and received cortisone treatments for it, insurance carriers have been turning down his insurance applications.

Most likely, Burd’s son will be just fine.  One of the perks of being a nationally prominent C.E.O. is that you tend to know other C.E.O.’s, including those who run insurance companies.  Burd has sent off a few pointed inquiries, and, he told me with a grin, he’s pretty sure one company or another will find a way to write a policy for his son.  But Burd has also taken note of the experience: it’s just one more sign that American health insurance doesn’t work the way it should.

Burd understands corporate America can no longer endorse plans that keep health care in the hands of industry.  Burd may be thought a maverick; however, this industrialist is not the only individual to act on his concerns.  In April, Steve Burd stated . . .

(H)e expected dozens of companies to join a nonprofit advocacy group.” Burd declined to reveal their names or the exact number of corporations participating. He did say that they represent a broad swath of corporate America and that all will be known when the group goes public later this spring.  

Burd also confirmed that one of the coalition’s officers in Washington will be the longtime Republican Party operative Ed Gillespie — whose presence in an organization explicitly endorsing “universal health coverage,” as the coalition’s founding principles do, would seem about as likely as the presence of George W. Bush himself, whose disdain for anything resembling “government-run health care” is a matter of public record.

By May, an Alliance comprised of thirty-six [36] large businesses was busy at work.  While the details of how to best provide universal health care are still being debated, there is a common consensus among eighteen [18] of the largest Fortune 500 companies within this group.

Most of the member companies provide health insurance benefits to workers but are becoming concerned about rising premium costs. In its statement of principles, the coalition wrote, “By next year, the average Fortune 500 firm will have a health care bill that exceeds its net income.”

Hence, we may conclude, as in years past, those now content with their employer paid health benefits , may not have these “luxuries” in the near future.  

Circumstances were bad five years ago.  They are worse now.  Those elated by the notion that the Clinton, Edwards, or Obama plan will not force them to forego their coverage may wish to contemplate, there is more to consider.  As the clock ticks on, and coverage for the masses and even the classes flies the coop, I ask.  How long might it be before you, the wealthy he, or the affluent she is I, me?

Insurance Woes, the Words, and Data . . .

Clinton Presents Plan For Universal Coverage, By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne Kornblut.  Washington Post. Tuesday, September 18, 2007; Page A01

Edwards Introduces Plan For Health-Care Coverage, Higher Taxes Would Be Needed, He Says.  By Dan Balz.  Washington Post. Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A03

2007 Bills on Universal Health Care Coverage Legislatures Fill in the Gaps.  National Conference of State Legislatures.

American Health Choices Plan. Hillary for President.

Health Care Fact sheet.  John Edwards 2008.

Health Care.  US Senator, Barack Obama

Obama, Following Rivals, Unveils Health Care Plan (Update1). By Jay Newton-Small and Aliza Marcus. Bloomberg. May 29, 2007

Kucinich Leads Presidential Hopefuls on Health Care for All. By Jonathan Springston. Atlanta Progressive News. March 19, 2007

As insurance costs mount, more uninsured are also full-time workers.  By Elisabeth Kilpatrick.  Medill Reports. July 26, 2007

The Working Uninsured. by Brandalyn Patton, Susan Duerksen and Murtaza Baxamusa. Center on Policy Initiatives. July 2007

The Number of Uninsured Americans Continues to rise in 2004. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The uninsured. News Hour.  Public Broadcasting Services. September 30, 2002

Uninsured in America, Life and Death in the Land of Opportunity.  By Susan Starr Sered and Rushika Fernandopulle.  The University of California Press. 2005

Bush Press Conference. Washington Post. September 20, 2007

Press Conference by the President.  White House. September 20, 2007

Number of Americans without Health Insurance Hits Record High NewsHour. Public Broadcasting Services. August 30, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Plan Challenged, By Joyce Russell.  Morning Edition.  National Public Radio. September 21, 2007

Clinton ripped off Edwards’ health care plan says wife. Cable News Network. September 20, 2007

The Obama Health Care Plan, By Ezra Klein.  May 29, 2007

Obama Says Washington Is Ready for Health Plan, By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post. Wednesday, May 30, 2007; Page A05

pdf Obama Says Washington Is Ready for Health Plan, By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post. Wednesday, May 30, 2007; Page A05

Harry and Louise and Health Care Reform: Romancing Public Opinion. By Raymond L. Goldsteen, Karen Goldsteen, James H. Swan, Wendy Clemeña.  Duke University. 2001

What’s the One Thing Big Business and the Left Have in Common? By Jonathan Cohn.  The New York Times. April 1, 2007

pdf What’s the One Thing Big Business and the Left Have in Common? By Jonathan Cohn.  The New York Times. April 1, 2007

Business Coalition Sets Sights on Universal Health Insurance. The California HealthCare Foundation.

Number of Uninsured Children Rises, By Christopher Lee. Washington Post. Tuesday, September 5, 2006; Page A06

Bush Announces New Attorney General

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

On this auspicious occasion, the nominee for America’s Attorney General is announced, I cannot help but notice the lack of enthusiasm in the voice of the President of the United States.  As the George W. Bush introduced Michael B. Mukasey, it was obvious, he felt no connection to the man he met for the first time only weeks ago.  

George W. Bush solemnly noted with little passion the “remarkable” record of the man that stood before him and the nation.  Expressionless,  the President apathetically proclaimed the Judge brings impressive credentials to the office of Attorney General.  Mister Bush selected a candidate that was able to assure allies and appease foes.
Bush attested to the vital role an Attorney General plays in protecting the nation, particularly in a time of war.  He offered the Mukasey biography and stressed the significance of the resume as it relates to terrorism.

Judge Mukasey Was Appointed By President Ronald Reagan To Serve On The United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York, A Position He Held For Over 18 Years.  Judge Mukasey was a strong leader during his six years as Chief Judge of this court, one of the country’s most important and prestigious Federal district courts.  His distinctive service earned him the Federal Bar Council’s Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence in 2004 and an honorary degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2002.

Judge Mukasey Presided Over The 1995 Trial Of 10 Individuals Accused Of Plotting Terrorist Attacks In New York City – Including Omar Abdel Rahman, The “Blind Sheikh” Involved In Planning The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  Judge Mukasey sentenced Rahman and another man, El Sayyid Nosair, to life in prison, a decision that required him to keep armed guards with him for protection.

Judge Mukasey Issued The First Ruling On Jose Padilla’s Challenge To His Detention As An Enemy Combatant.  He found that the Government had the right to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime.  Judge Mukasey also granted a defense motion to allow Mr. Padilla to meet with his attorneys.

A Former Prosecutor, Judge Mukasey Served For Four Years (1972-76) As An Assistant United States Attorney For The Prestigious And Demanding Southern District Of New York Office.  While in the United States Attorney’s office, Judge Mukasey demonstrated strong leadership and management skills as the Chief of the Official Corruption Unit.

Many noted Mukasey was not, and is not an inner circle crony.  Possibly, it was for that reason George W. Bush droned on as he delivered what for him may have felt  as an obligatory speech.  I could not be certain.  Nevertheless, the confluence was striking.  Here is a qualified Judge, a Conservative, a Jurist that ruled in Bush’s favor and yet, the President seemed less than satisfied.  I was intent.  I wanted to understand.  I was mesmerized by the tone the tenor of this tentative overture.  

The President spoke in an almost monotone voice.  None of the characteristic cadence was evident.  Where was the smile, the smirk, or the silly side comments that are standard Bush?  I was captivated as I heard and observed the man that often is as background in my life.  Something was very, very, very wrong with this picture.  I waited and watched.  I did not do as I typically do, go about my day while the President expounds.  I stood in front of the television until I understood.

A Justice Department mired in controversy was about to see some relief.  Morale so low among lawmakers could rise again.  A President hindered by a distraction, by many an unwanted diversion, possibly will be able to truly move forward.  Yet, the President of the United States is somber.  

Finally, the light shined through.  The spark in Bush’s voice returned.  His face lit up as he shared the story of the soon to be former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  Some of the fire in his eyes stemmed from fury.  A fraction was the expression of heart-felt love for a man that the President has long called “my friend.”  Glowing with pride and pleasure, while furious with the flame of rage Mister Bush said . . .

When he takes his place at the Department of Justice, he will succeed another fine judge, Alberto Gonzales. From his days as a Supreme Court Justice in Texas, to his years as White House Counsel and as Attorney General of the United States, this honorable and decent man has served with distinction. I’ve known Al and his family for more than a decade. He’s a dear friend and a trusted advisor. I will miss him and I wish Al and Becky all the best.

Mister Bush has many dear friends.  They follow him, and have, just as a posse adheres to the wants of its leader.  The Bush flock is as a herd that trails behind its shepherd.  Perhaps, that has long been the problem.  President George W. Bush and his minion Attorney General Gonzales were too close.  The supposed subordinate had ample power, the ability to change America in ways that destroyed the Constitution and he did.   His constant contact with the Chief, blind faith in the Commander, ultimately broke the will of the  Republican Gonzales backers, just as it devastated morale at the Justice Department.

Justice Department morale at low point over Gonzales
By Philip Shenon and Jim Rutenberg
New York Times. San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, July 28, 2007

(07-28) 04:00 PDT Washington — Daniel Metcalfe, a lawyer who began his government career in the Nixon administration and retired from the Justice Department last winter, said morale at the department is worse under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales than during Watergate.

John Koppel, who continues to work at the department as a civil appellate lawyer in Washington, wrote this month that he was ashamed of the department and that if Gonzales told the truth in recent congressional testimony, “he has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job.”

Even though they worry that it may hinder their career prospects, a few current and former Justice Department lawyers have begun to add to the chorus of Gonzales’ critics who say that the furor over his performance as attorney general, and questions about his truthfulness under oath, could do lasting damage to the department’s work.

It is a view that is widely shared on Capitol Hill, even more so after the grueling questioning of Gonzales on Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which his credibility was repeatedly challenged. After the hearing, several Democratic senators called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether he committed perjury.

Lawmakers and senior congressional aides from both parties said Gonzales had lost almost all ability to influence the administration’s agenda in Congress, denying the president what should be an important voice on issues including terrorism, immigration, and civil rights.

“The attorney general’s loss of credibility not only harms him personally, it diminishes the Justice Department and undermines the president’s ability to move some of his most sensitive legal issues through the Hill because the trust factor doesn’t exist with his attorney general,” said Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, a Gonzales critic who is chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Gonzales is expected to be sidelined from any significant part in the debate on Capitol Hill this summer over legislation eagerly sought by the administration to update terrorist surveillance laws.

Administration officials and close allies acknowledge that some of President Bush’s aides might be eager to see Gonzales go, but they say the attorney general continues to have the confidence of Bush, who has repeatedly shown that he resists making personnel decisions under political pressure.

In separate interviews, White House officials used virtually the same words in describing why Gonzales might remain at the department indefinitely: “Only one person matters” — the president.

The President, for years, remained loyal to his good friend Alberto Gonzales.  George W. Bush, when confronted with concerns about any of those he thought prized, consistently stated he had confidence in his appointees.  Nonetheless, the claims of incompetence continued to haunt the President.  Ultimately, his buoyancy, his decision to bolster the ineffective and less than authentically qualified waned.

Bush’s herd of loyal Texas advisers continues to thin
By Dave Montgomery
McClatchy Newspapers
August 27, 2007 08:04:36 PM

Washington — They were fiercely loyal, unfailingly disciplined and, as a unit, offered the president a comforting touchstone from his home state.

Now, Team Texas is moving ever closer to extinction. The already thinning cadre of advisers who followed George W. Bush from Austin to Washington is unraveling even further, with Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove heading toward the door.

Although Texans are still dotted throughout the administration, most of the influential Lone Star transplants who’ve worked at Bush’s side since his days as Texas governor either have left town or removed themselves from day-to-day influence at the White House.

Gonzales, a steadfast loyalist who served as Bush’s counsel in the governor’s office, announced his resignation as attorney general Monday after enduring a months-long uproar over his stewardship of the Justice Department. Rove, the architect of Bush’s victorious presidential campaigns, will leave at the end of the week.

They join a parade of other departed Bush insiders from Texas, including White House adviser Dan Bartlett, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Joe Allbaugh and White House lawyer Harriet Miers, who Bush briefly nominated to the Supreme Court before a conservative backlash forced him to withdraw the nomination.

Perhaps, Americans might learn from the Bush example.  While many Americans criticize the President for his faithful devotion to friends, even when they fail to prove themselves worthy of deference, citizens of this country do the same in respect to their President.  

George W. Bush has shown that he does not have the people’s best interest at heart.  This Commander-In-Chief, has lied, cheated, and stolen the Constitution.  Yet, we cling to the charade that he is our protector.  Numerous Americans say they do not see him as such.  Nonetheless, actions, or more accurately inactions speak.  Few dare to insist that we impeach this Administration.  

George W. Bush remains the “decider.”  Indeed, often we hear that this President has protected us from further terrorist attacks.  Rarely do Americans consider that worldwide our national leaders are seen as “insurgents” and “occupiers.” Assaults are ample.  They are evident on the tattered parchment we call the Constitution.

Americans, as a whole, may also wish to accept what a few of the Bush cohorts learned to appreciate.   It is possible to separate our selves from this President and still survive intact.

Some of the originals that remain in Washington District of Columbia are able to function with less fanfare and nary a word of farewell.  Constituents do not disparage the deeds of those that chose to disconnect themselves from their guru.  Those that stay in the Capital understand what the common folk seem to dismiss.  George W. Bush may have been brought them to this place; however, they, and we, need not stay with him and allow him to do us harm.  

Perchance, Americans might do as those that were once considered part of the clan.  For safety and sanity, some of the original Texas team acknowledged that they could make it on our own.  Possibly, citizens might acknowledge the same.

Karen Hughes, one of Bush’s most trusted advisers in Austin and during the early days at the White House, remains in town but is focused on her current duties as a top State Department official charged with bolstering the U.S. image abroad.

Three other vintage Bushites are still in Washington but, like Hughes, they’re largely focused on their own turf: Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, the author of Bush’s education initiatives in Austin; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, Bush’s former neighbor in Dallas; and former Bush college roommate Clay Johnson, who serves as the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The departures are to be expected toward the end of a second term. For the most part, many of Bush’s original teammates chose to stay on long past the traditional tenure in a city known for burnout and destroyed families.

“The only surprise is not that any of the Texans have left but that they stayed so long,” said Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media consultant who’s now the vice chairman of Public Strategies of Austin.

The longevity of many Texas transplants — particularly those who remained at Bush’s side deep into his second term — in many ways reflects the mutual loyalty that bonded the former Texas governor and those who joined him at the outset of his political career in the mid-1990s.

Loyalty, while a lovely trait can create much chaos.  Indeed, it has in the Justice Department and by extension throughout the United States of America.  In this country, as Alberto Gonzales proclaimed the President has powers awarded in times of war.  Thus, privacy is righteously lost.  Telephone trolling is no longer a temptation for those in “authority” that wish to spy on average citizens; it is law.  Habeas corpus is denied, and Rules of the Geneva Convention are deemed quaint.

David R. Gergen, professor of public service at Harvard University and an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan and Clinton, said Mr. Gonzales “will be remembered as riding shotgun with Dick Cheney on the expansion of presidential power.”

Mr. Gergen and other legal analysts and former government officials said Mr. Gonzales came to stand for the government-by-fiat approach adopted by the Bush White House after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“You can’t just change government through strong-willed policy,” said Stanley Brand, an ethics lawyer in Washington and a former House Democratic counsel.  “People who ride into Washington on a high horse of ideology or ignorance are inevitably headed toward a blow-up.”

That may be true; however, it seems the high horse in recent years was a stallion like no other.  Its stance was firm; it conviction strong, and oh that saddle.  The polished leather placed on the back of the Bush, Cheney steed carried quite a load and maintained its balance for seven long and difficult years.  While Alberto Gonzales may have seemed to ride along side for a time, he was never off course.  History demonstrates that frequently the now resigned Attorney General held the reigns.

Mr. Gonzales’s role — and particularly his derision of some provisions of the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” in one memorandum — led to a bruising confirmation battle in 2005 after Mr. Bush had tapped him to become the country’s first Hispanic attorney general. Even then, Mr. Gonzales and his senior aides were well aware of the perception, unfair though they thought it was, that his first loyalty was to the president, not to his position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

“I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people,” he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing in January 2005. “I understand the differences between the two roles.”

For Gonzales, the distinction may be similar to what the President experiences.  George W. Bush understands he is Commander-In-Chief and appointees serve at his pleasure.  Bush and his Cabinet work to represent and protect the American people.  However, the President understands that he serves a higher authority.  His purpose is providence.  George W. Bush serves his savior, Jesus Christ and the Lord guides him.  Apparently, Gonzales understood, he walked a similar line.  

Though few knew it at the time, John Ashcroft, Mr. Gonzales’s predecessor at the Justice Department, had shown a willingness to stand up to the White House at critical times — most famously in a March 2004 visit to his hospital room over the wiretapping program, when he refused efforts by Mr. Gonzales to certify its legality.

By naming Mr. Gonzales as Mr. Ashcroft’s successor in November 2004, the White House was apparently seeking to assert its control over the department.  Mr. Gonzales brought several important aides from the White House, and in the view of many Justice Department veterans, never adequately established his independence of the president’s political circle in the new job.

After the wiretapping program was publicly disclosed in December 2005, Mr. Gonzales’s handling of the controversy exacerbated those concerns.  He became the most prominent public defender of the program, but his legal explanations were often ridiculed by lawmakers who accused him of stonewalling by refusing to turn over crucial documents.

Republicans remained publicly supportive of Mr. Gonzales while they were in power on Capitol Hill.  But with the Democrats’ takeover of both chambers this year, Democrats feasted on his political vulnerabilities by mounting an aggressive investigation into the United States attorneys affair, and Republicans soon joined in.

The first flash point in the episode, turning the dismissals from a low-grade nuisance to a front-page scandal, came on Feb. 7, when Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty said at a Senate hearing that at least one of the ousted prosecutors had been moved out to make way for a former aide to Karl Rove.

Each week seemed to bring new evidence and batches of e-mail suggesting that the removals might have been politically motivated, and Mr. Gonzales’s honesty came under sharp attack in an April 19 Senate appearance that was widely panned by Democrats and Republicans.

Possibly, then Bush might have realized what he reluctantly ultimately accepted only weeks ago.  It was time to cut his loses.  However, he did not.  George W. Bush could not, would not remove a member of the Executive Branch.  Bush was certain to do so would be wrong.  He did not wish to put the country through such a proceeding.  The President held on tight to his commitment, just as the American people do.  However . . .

Mr. Gonzales’s testimony “was very, very damaging to his own credibility” and his continued presence had hurt the Justice Department as a whole, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said at the time.  “Charges are being made that the Department of Justice was the political arm of the White House,” Mr. Specter said.

After an April appearance before the Senate on the United States attorneys controversy, one critic counted 74 times that Mr. Gonzales had said that either he could not recall events or did not know the answer.  Even conservative icons like Robert H. Bork, the former solicitor general, thought Mr. Gonzales had mishandled the dismissals.  “The way he responded made a nonscandal a scandal,” Mr. Bork said Monday.

The testimony in May of James B. Comey, deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Gonzales, about the 2004 confrontation in the hospital over the wiretapping program further undermined Mr. Gonzales, who had testified previously that there had been no disagreement over the program.  Officials later said the disagreement was chiefly over the security agency’s data mining, not its closely related eavesdropping, but Mr. Gonzales’s legalistic distinction was rejected as misleading by some senators who had been briefed on the secret surveillance.

By then, Mr. Gonzales was daily fodder for political cartoons and television comedians.  With Congressional leaders calling for a perjury investigation, the controversy over the visit to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room appears to have become the final blow to Mr. Gonzales’s already shaky status as attorney general.

Finally, the President understood what the American people refuse to grasp.  The Attorney General could not function any longer.  Gonzales, just as Bush, is considered the source for comic relief.  However, laughter does not relieve the pain.  George W. Bush did not appreciate this truth; however, he could not change it.

This morning the President may have reminded us of ourselves.  We may love to hate the Commander-In-Chief.  We may wish to blame him for all the nation’s ills.  Perchance, some of us think there is not enough time to release him from his service.  Hearings would take time and destroy the country.  We must attend to deeds that are more important.  

Yet, might we consider what we witnessed today and accept the analogy.  George W. Bush loves Gonzales, his loyal disciple, for whatever reasons, good or bad.  Yet, he did not wish to let go.  Even as he did so, it was evident his heart was not in it.  

Some of us might realize we, in our reluctance to accept that this Administration needs to be removed, are as Mister Bush.  We got used to the “good old boy,” torn and tattered as he may be.  George W. Bush was familiar with his friend.  We are well acquainted with him.  

Some loved Mister Bush when he was first elected.  They would hate to think they might have been wrong.  None of us wish to believe that a vote for George W. Bush, or an endorsement for the war in Iraq would place this country in the terrible quagmire it is in.  

President Bush certainly was unable to admit to the error of his appointment.  Americans may declare their error now, belatedly; yet, they do nothing to correct the circumstances.  We, the people wait, just as George W. did.

To this day, Mister Bush  defiantly praised his earlier choice.  As disciplined as the President pretended to be as he introduced his new nominee, he could not, would not, separate himself from the man that helped fashion his favor.  Perhaps, we might see ourselves in George W. Bush.  Might we think that if we dared impeach, that admission, admonishment of the Executives, would lead this country into chaos.  Perhaps, Americans think we would appear weak.  I invite each of us to ask, why are we unwilling to break free from the man that shaped our course, and continues to stay it?

I welcome reflection.   On this day of induction, we must be realistic.  An Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. Whether he is as Conservatives fret, too liberal, or if he is a others express, the New York Jurist is prudent, a perfect balance.  This single man cannot do what we, the people have not done.  We can hope as we read assessments.  Slate Magazine, Journalist Emily Bazelon states in Measuring Mukasey . . .

Given the administration’s past go-it-alone mentality (known more formally as the “unitary executive theory”), it’s certainly reassuring that Mukasey thinks that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to make the sweeping changes he advocates.  At least we won’t have a new special court by executive order.

Nonetheless, we have what we have.  If Congress approves a man that respects the Constitution, he alone cannot restore the document to its original form.  

I can only hope it is not too late.  Time is an interesting construct.  It heals nothing.  What we do in time moves us forward, or backward.

From my own perspective, I look at the number of days that George W. Bush remains in office and I shutter.  Four hundred and ninety days is quite a term.  One amenable, fair, and just Attorney General alone cannot possibly give the country back to the American people.  A single man with an impressive record cannot alter the course of a war gone wrong.  Only we the people can do this deed.

I muse; might we consider impeachment of the Bush/Cheney clan.  Perhaps, there is a chance, justice will be served, if we do as the President has done.  Let us resign ourselves and reluctantly admit, it is time.  Some that stayed in the White House must go.

Gonzales Goes; Will Justice Return, or Will Bush/Cheney Continue to Reign . . .

Transcripts; CNN Newsroom.  Cable News Network. September 17, 2007

Ex-Judge Is Said to Be Pick At Justice, Democrats Likely To Accept Him as Attorney General. By Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen.  Washington Post. Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A01

pdf Ex-Judge Is Said to Be Pick At Justice, Democrats Likely To Accept Him as Attorney General. By Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen.  Washington Post. Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A01

Bush’s inner circle Cable News Network. 2001

President Bush Announces Judge Michael Mukasey as Nominee for Attorney General. Office of the Press Secretary. September 17, 2007

Justice Department morale at low point over Gonzales By Philip Shenon and Jim Rutenberg. New York Times. San Francisco Chronicle. Saturday, July 28, 2007

Bush’s herd of loyal Texas advisers continues to thin. By Dave Montgomery.  McClatchy Newspapers. August 27, 2007

pdf Bush’s herd of loyal Texas advisers continues to thin. By Dave Montgomery.  McClatchy Newspapers. August 27, 2007

Gonzales, Loyal to Bush, Was Firm on War Policies, By Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane.  The New York Times. August 28, 2007

pdf Gonzales, Loyal to Bush, Was Firm on War Policies, By Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane.  The New York Times. August 28, 2007

No shying away from God Talk in campaign, By Mary Leonard.  Boston Globe. December 23, 1999

George W. Bush and the G-Word, By Al Kamen.  Washington Post. Friday, October 14, 2005; Page A17

pdf George W. Bush and the G-Word, By Al Kamen.  Washington Post. Friday, October 14, 2005; Page A17

Measuring Mukasey, He’s No Pushover, But Will Bush’s Pick for AG Rein In The Administration On Executive Power? By Emily Bazelon.  Slate. Monday, Sept. 17, 2007, at 11:54 AM ET

Fact Sheet: Michael Mukasey: A Strong Attorney General.  The White House.

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The mantra may be “teach tolerance.”  Yet, we teach our children intolerance.  In America, we see Historic Reversals, [and] Accelerating Resegregation, so says a report released in August 2007.  This study, conducted by Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee, of the Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles documents what is evident throughout the country; racism is alive and well in America.  Indeed, racial discrimination grows stronger each and every day.  The most recent Supreme Court decision, handed down in June 2007, endorsed further racial divides.  Parents Involved in Community Schools versus Seattle School District Number 1 et al, sanctions school segregation.  For the most part, parents and the population at-large embrace this ruling.
People now have permission to do what they have long done, discriminate.  We can predict, with consent from the highest court in the land, prejudice will continue to grow.  Fractures and fissures will expand and the achievement gap will widen.  Currently, forty-three [43] percent of American school children are not Caucasian.  The education they receive has been sub-standard for decades.

Many segregated schools struggle to attract highly qualified teachers and administrators, do not prepare students well for college and fail to graduate more than half their students.

Integration in the few schools that have worked to improve opportunities for all, equally, has helped to a degree.  However, for the most part non-whites cannot or are not easily enrolled in the better schools.  Proximity and policies hinder any efforts to secure equivalent scholarship for students of color.  The Supreme Court decision will only serve to exacerbate a dire situation.

In its June ruling the Supreme Court forbade most existing voluntary local efforts to integrate schools in a decision favored by the Bush administration despite warnings from academics that it would compound educational inequality.

“It is about as dramatic a reversal in the stance of the federal courts as one could imagine,” said Gary Orfield, a UCLA professor and a co-author of the report.

“The federal courts are clearly pushing us backward segregation with the encouragement of the Justice Department of President George W. Bush,” he said in an interview.

The United States risks becoming a nation in which a new majority of non-white young people will attend “separate and inferior” schools, the report said.

Even when the schools are supposedly integrated, they are not.  Attitudes separate the races; reason and rational thought are but clouds, passing swiftly through the mind.  Hearts and souls struggle to survive when segregation exists around every bend and under every tree branch.  Subtle talk of lynching remains strong in society.  We see it in the schools; children act out what adult say they reject; yet in reality project.  We need only consider the circumstances of the “Jena Six” to support this notion.  It’s still about race in Jena, Louisiana.

Last week [July 2007] in Detroit, the NAACP held a mock funeral for the N-word.  But a chilling case in Louisiana shows us how far we have to go to bury racism.  This story begins in the small, central Louisiana town of Jena.  Last September, a black high school student requested the school’s permission to sit beneath a broad, leafy tree in the hot schoolyard.  Until then, only white students sat there.

The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree.  The black students responded en masse.  Justin Purvis, the kid who first sat under the tree, told filmmaker Jacquie Soohen: “They said, ‘Y’all want to go stand under the tree?’  We said, ‘Yeah.’  They said, ‘If you go, I’ll go.  If you go, I’ll go.’  One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went.”

Then the police and the district attorney showed up.  Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers recounts: “District Attorney Reed Walters proceeded to tell those kids that ‘I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.'”

It wouldn’t happen for a few more months, but that is exactly what the district attorney is trying to do.

The Jena Six
Indeed the stroke of a pen may put six innocent children into prison.  Young men, in the prime of their lives may realize what millions have known for centuries.  In America, Black and Brown are not beautiful.  

This is obvious as we watch the daily debate in the halls of Congress and on television screens.  Immigrants of color are not welcome.  Fences are built to “protect” white Americans from their own fears.  African-Americans are ‘busted’ merely for driving while Black.  White citizens within the United States are apprehensive.  Statistics show, soon, Caucasians will be in the minority.  Indeed, the Black and Brown population is increasing.  This is true in public schools, in our cities, and in the rural countryside.  Breeding, just as much in society, belies logic.

Almost nine-tenths of American students were counted as white in the early l960s, but the number of white students fell 20 percent from l968 to 2005, as the baby boom gave way to the baby bust for white families, while the number of blacks increased 33 percent and the number of Latinos soared 380 percent amid surging immigration of a young population with high birth rates.

Just as in centuries past, the poorest among us tend to congregate in ghettoes, not by choice, but in reality.  The impoverished are often under-educated.  They cannot secure quality positions in the workforce.  Those that lack academic expertise and not empowered to do what might benefit them as individuals and society as a whole.  Thus, they congregate in inner cities, live in substandard houses, and travel only as far as meager transportation systems allow.  The disadvantaged do not have the opportunities the more affluent among us have.

As the indigent population increases, conditions worsen.  Cities become more crowded, crime more prevalent, and students are less able to acquire knowledge.  Division gives rise to greater discrimination.  The cycle of separation is endless.  Eventually, we spiral downward.  Indeed we have.

The country’s rapidly growing population of Latino and black students is more segregated than they have been since the l960s and we are going backward faster in the areas where integration was most far-reaching.

Under the new decision, local and state educators have far less freedom to foster integration than they have had for the last four decades.  The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision has sharply limited local control in this arena, which makes it likely that segregation will further increase.

Americans love to label their country a “melting pot,” a stew that combines races, religions, and creeds.  However, this society is not nor has it ever been a delicious blend.  Those that consider themselves cream, rise to the top.  They take their friends and family with them.  

The elite ethnic groups are well educated.  Never would they wish to be identified as racist.  Auspiciously, these affluent persons and those with less dollars, but beautiful pearly white skin write the books, prepare the dictionaries and define themselves, “color-blind.”  Yet, we know, they are not.  In Jena, Louisiana, we recall that a Black student felt the need to ask if he might sit under a tree.  In America, even nature is reserved for the white persons to enjoy.

The next day, hanging from the tree, were three ropes, in school colors, each tied to make a noose.

The events set in motion by those nooses led to a schoolyard fight.  And that fight led to the conviction, on June 28, 2007, of a Black student at Jena High School for charges that can bring up to 22 years in prison.

Mychal Bell, a 16-year-old sophomore football star at the time he was arrested, was convicted by an all-white jury, without a single witness being called on his behalf.  And five more Black students in Jena still face serious charges stemming from the fight.

Caseptla Bailey, a Black community leader and mother of one of the Black students, told the London Observer, “To us those nooses meant the KKK, they meant, ‘Niggers, we’re going to kill you, we’re going to hang you till you die.'”  The attack was brushed off as a “youthful stunt.”  The three white students responsible, given only three days of in-school suspension.

In response to the incident, several Black students, among them star players on the football team, staged a sit-in under the tree.  The principal reacted by bringing in the white district attorney, Reed Walters, and 10 local police officers to an all-school assembly.  Marcus Jones, Mychal Bell’s father, described the assembly to Revolution:

“Now remember, with everything that goes on at Jena High School, everybody’s separated.  The only time when Black and white kids are together is in the classroom and when they playing sports together.  During lunch time, Blacks sit on one side, whites sit on the other side of the cafeteria.  During canteen time, Blacks sit on one side of the campus, whites sit on the other side of the campus.

“At any activity done in the auditorium-anything-Blacks sit on one side, whites on the other side, okay?  The DA tells the principal to call the students in the auditorium.  They get in there.  The DA tells the Black students, he’s looking directly at the Black students-remember, whites on one side, Blacks on the other side-he’s looking directly at the Black students.  He told them to keep their mouths shut about the boys hanging their nooses up.  If he hears anything else about it, he can make their lives go away with the stroke of his pen.”

DA Walters concluded that the students should “work it out on their own.”  Police officers roamed the halls of the school that week, and tensions simmered throughout the fall semester.

Ah, that stew, and the cooks.  When District Attorney Walters presumes and proclaims there are too many chefs.  They have spoiled the broth and the soup must stand alone, it simmers on the stove, unattended.  Finally, as the fire underneath the kettle heats the concoction, the mixture begins to boil.  Sauce spills out and many are burned.  Indeed, ultimately we all are.  For as much as we wish to separate the parts, we are each part of the whole.

However, sadly, the scars show more on darker skin.  Nonetheless, we all are wounded.  The pain wrought by an authorized and artificial separation affects every one of us.

It is true.  Education and the economy are inexorably tied.  If pupils in any population do not receive an adequate erudition, the entirety suffers, economically.  We all feel the effects of segregation.  What is in our cities and in our country is palpable in our schools.  Circumstances in educational facilities are felt fiscally.  

What white persons may wish to consider without the fear that currently drives them, is that they are never separate from those they prefer not to see.  What they do to beings with Black and Brown skin will ultimately have an effect on their lily white bodies.  

Caucasian Americans have a decision to make.  They can choose harmony or continue to allow their trepidation to hurt them, to harm us all.

We are in the last decade of a white majority in American public schools and there are already minorities of white students in our two largest regions, the South and the West.  When today’s children become adults, we will be a multiracial society with no majority group, where all groups will have to learn to live and work successfully together.  School desegregation has been the only major policy directly addressing this need and that effort has now been radically constrained.

The schools are not only becoming less white but also have a rising proportion of poor children.  The percentage of school children poor enough to receive subsidized lunches has grown dramatically.  This is not because white middle class students have produced a surge in private school enrollment; private schools serve a smaller share of students than a half century ago and are less white.  

The reality is that the next generation is much less white because of the aging and small family sizes of white families and the trend is deeply affected by immigration from Latin American and Asia.  Huge numbers of  children growing up in families with very limited resources, and face an economy with deepening inequality of income distribution, where only those with higher education are securely in the middle class.

It is a simple statement of fact to say that the country’s future depends on finding ways to prepare groups of students who have traditionally fared badly in American schools to perform at much higher levels and to prepare all young Americans to live and work in a society vastly more diverse than ever in our past.

Some of our largest states will face a decline in average educational levels in the near future as the racial transformation proceeds if the educational success of nonwhite students does not improve substantially.

While throughout the nation adults discuss busing or income based integration in the schools, we must realize that Band-Aids will never cover the lesions that lie beneath the surface.  What we do in our schools mirrors what is done in our neighborhoods.  If we are to truly prosper, Americans must accept and acknowledge that no matter the exterior color, beauty is within.  Skin is surface.  Depth is what we create when we educate our children.  An educated person, Black, white, or Brown benefits him or herself, as well as us all.

Currently, the dropout rates are extraordinary.  When young persons are not stimulated to think and are not expected to perform there is little reason to stay in school.  Dollars may seem more attractive and meaningful to those adolescents that receive little in their local educational facilities.  Whether greenbacks are appealing or not, in our society they are necessary for survival.  Possibly, money motivates more than the young.  I suspect, adults quantify their decisions based on budget.  Therefore, let us look at education as a pocketbook issue.  Perchance, the purse and its strings will garner some attention.

Broad policy decisions in education can be framed around a simple question: Do the benefits to society of investing in an educational strategy outweigh the costs?

We [researchers at Teachers College, Columbia University] provide an answer for those individuals who currently fail to graduate from high school.  The present cohort of 20-year olds in the US today includes over 700,000 high school dropouts, many from disadvantaged backgrounds.  We investigate the economic consequences of improving their education.

First, we identify five leading interventions that have been shown to raise high school graduation rates; and we calculate their costs and their effectiveness.  Second, we add up the lifetime public benefits of high school graduation.  These include higher tax revenues as well as lower government spending on health, crime, and welfare.  (We do not include private benefits such as higher earnings).  

Next, we compare the costs of the interventions to the public benefits.  We find that each new high school graduate would yield a public benefit of $209,000 in higher government revenues and lower government spending for an overall investment of $82,000, divided between the costs of powerful educational interventions and additional years of school attendance leading to graduation.  The net economic benefit to the public purse is therefore $127,000 per student and the benefits are 2.5 times greater than the costs.

If the number of high school dropouts in this age cohort was cut in half, the government would reap $45 billion via extra tax revenues and reduced costs of public health, of crime and justice, and in welfare payments.  This lifetime saving of $45 billion for the current cohort would also accrue for subsequent cohorts of 20-year olds.

If there is any bias to our calculations, it has been to keep estimates of the benefits conservative.  Sensitivity tests indicate that our main conclusions are robust: the costs to the nation of failing to ensure high school graduation for all America’s children are substantial.

Educational investments to raise the high school graduation rate appear to be doubly beneficial: the quest for greater equity for all young adults would also produce greater efficiency in the use of public resources.

America, you decide.  Will we continue to cultivate practices that endorse separate and unequal, or will we invest in integration.  Many parents applauded the Supreme Court decision that allowed their progeny to stay close to home.  Granted, the transport of students to schools far from the safety and sanctuary of the suburbs is less than desirable.  However, if we do not fully, adequately, and equally educate those that have less wealth and fewer resources we will continue to grow poverty.  Perchance it is time to ponder; people need people.  Blacks need Whites.  Browns require Reds, Yellow, and those whose skin is olive Green.  In actuality, each of us does best when we acknowledge we are one.

Pssst, someone please tell the Justices seated in the Supreme Court.  Perhaps, they are too isolated to notice.  Let us guide them to the window, ask them to look out onto the streets.  People of all races, colors, and creed commingle in this country.  If only they were encouraged to do so in the schools.

Schools, Segregation, Sources . . .

Report: Segregation in U.S. Schools is Increasing. By Matthew Bigg.  Reuters.  Washington Post. ?Wednesday, August 29, 2007; 8:42 PM

pdf Report: Segregation in U.S. Schools is Increasing. By Matthew Bigg.  Reuters.  Washington Post. ?Wednesday, August 29, 2007; 8:42 PM

It’s still about race in Jena, La.  By Amy Goodman.  Seattle Post intelligencer. July 18, 2007

White Supremacy and the Jena Six, Southern Discomfort, By Alice Woodward.  CounterPunch. July 10, 2007

The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education for All of America’s Children By Henry Levin, Clive Belfield, Peter Muennig, Cecilia Rouse.  Teachers College, Columbia University. January 2007

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Each evening I go to sleep and hope that in the morning when I awake, the nightmare will be over.  I am unsure whether it has been days, weeks, months, or years since I felt as though there was reason to expect all would be well.  I contemplate the plight of many, and my heart bleeds.  I wonder; can we say we live for the Seventh Generation or must we accept that our progeny will not survive.  
When I consider the circumstances of children I weep.  Their health and welfare do not seem to fit into our adult plans or our budget.  I am concerned when I hear whispers and discussions; the State Children’s Health Insurance Program [SCHIP] costs too much.  I am more anxious since I learned the Bush Administration imposed stipulations; now the program will not cover many offspring in need.  Each of these distressing dilemmas, I think is symptomatic of an endemic problem.  We, the elders focus on financial matters more than physical realities.  

In America, adults believe a healthy economy equates to profits, not authentic assets.  Mature minds act as though people are worth less than a pocket full of coins.  Yet, individuals of age whose priorities are askew, determine what is best for the beloved young.   Frequently, those old enough to support themselves think of little but their individual survival.  Rarely, do working stiffs realize they are part of a community.  In America, until there is a time of crisis, it is every man or woman for his or herself.

It seems we, as a society, do not recognize that in each moment, we are part of a whole.  Each and every one of us belongs to a community.  Americans feel isolated, insulated from their neighbors.  As inhabitants of Earth, we are one.  What any of us does, will affect another.  Yet, we ignore this truth.  We disregard much.  We allow for what occurs, as long as we do not think it will harm us directly.  

This week, the Bush Administration took advantage of our apathy.  The Administration altered the regulations of the State Children’s Health insurance Program [SCHIP.]  Few Americans will blink an eye.  Most people are focused on providing for their families in the only way they know how.  They work.  Parents of the millions of children without insurance have learned to accommodate.  Some never knew they could apply for the Children’s Health Insurance Plan.
Residents of this country think themselves too busy, too stressed, too overwhelmed to worry about those outside their circle.  They go about their day doing what they know needs to be done, and do not realize what they overlook.  What occurs, even to the offspring they say they love is often too much to bear.  To ideate our intention, then ruminate on our reality is painful.

Many Eligible for Child Health Plan Have No Idea
By Kevin Sack
The New York Times
August 22, 2007

Greensboro, N.C. — During the four years that her children were uninsured, Cassie O. Hall used the emergency room as their pediatrician.  When Tayana had an asthma attack or Darren developed a stubborn rash, they would head to the hospital and settle in for a long wait.

The children never got physical exams or booster shots.  And as the unpaid hospital bills stacked up, the threshold for a visit grew higher.  “They would have to be half-dead before I would take them,” said Ms. Hall, a day care operator who could not afford private insurance.

It was only in May that Ms. Hall learned that her family qualified for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides subsidized insurance to children of the working poor.  That she had never heard of the joint state and federal program made her typical of countless parents of the estimated eight million uninsured children.

Despite a decade of marketing efforts by governments and private foundations, nearly 30 percent of children who are eligible for the health insurance program and are not covered by private plans have yet to enroll, according to a new government study.

The reasons for this are ample.  In America, families are in flux.  People move.  Households split.  One parent or another might think they are not responsible for the health care coverage of their child.  Those without often hide.  They are embarrassed by their circumstances.  

If a mother or father changes jobs, insurance may come or go.  Transitions may initially be thought temporary.  Perhaps, what occurs is merely characteristic of our culture.  People are busy.  They wait for a catastrophe before they act.

Possibly, the public will not express their concern because they do not recognize the depth of the dilemma.  Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter R. Orszag understands the reasons for this.  In a letter addressed to  United States Senator, Max Baucus, Chairman of the Committee on Finance he offers some insight into the information regarding uninsured children.

In response to your letter of July 10, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has examined available estimates of the number of children who lack health insurance, but are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP). Some empirical studies have found that there are between 5 million and 6 million such children. In contrast to those studies, the Administration recently estimated that a much smaller number, 1.1 million children, lack health insurance but are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.

In an August 2005 report prepared for the  Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and completed by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) and the Urban Institute using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) researchers stated, in 2003, 8.4 million children are uninsured.  As noted, there is ample reason to believe the number is now much higher.  However, it is difficult to know what is valid.  Unfortunately, few care.  They have no time for such technicalities.

All around the nation, for adults, life goes on; day-to-day perceived “necessities” overwhelm them,.  Mature and “civilized” persons “must” consume petroleum products.  Grown-ups are required to ravage the terrain in an attempt to supply for our infinite “needs.”  We fight for freedom so that we might incinerate more oil.  We spoil the soil with waste from our factories.  Waterways are boulevards for gas-guzzling boats.  American citizens devour foods contaminated with chemicals.  

In the meantime, roads crack.  Rivers fill with filth.  The ozone layer deteriorates, as does the health of the planet.  Our children may feel the burden of our lifestyle more than we do.  Their little bodies are more susceptible to environmental influences.  Healthy habitats seem a thing of the past.

While we wallow in war and work for our individual riches, we ignore what matters most.  The quality of our shared existence; the importance of our common well-being, the children, their health, and ours.

Currently, young persons, those older and the elderly acquire chronic respiratory illnesses at a rate not thought possible.  The weight of the world settles in the bellies of a population grown fat.  We trust that someone, somewhere, will do what we dare not, consciously choose to care about more than the moment.  We seek a quick fix to all that ails us.  Perhaps, drugs will reduce the pain; however, who can afford a prescription.  Parents struggle to pay their own bills.  Children dependent on the care of a mother, father, guardian, or two parents often realize that unless they are severely ill, medical procedures must be postponed.

Many parents of uninsured children say they cannot afford unexpected medical bills and emergency room visits.  They report that they avoid medical costs whenever they can by treating illnesses at home with over-the-counter medications and home remedies.  Almost all say they postpone medical care for their children and put off buying prescription drugs when they can.  A parent of an uninsured child in Miami said, “We try not to get sick.  I try not to think about it too much.”

Americans avoid much in word and deed.  Citizens feel powerless.  They perceive the government is separate from them.  Senators, Congressmen, and women, even the President does not represent the common folk.  The conventional wisdom is “‘Politicians are crooks.”  The public, for the most part sees no reason to be politically active; apathy is rampant in the United States.

We do not understand that we “the people” are the authority.  Democracy defines ‘government’ as of, by, and for the people.  Our vote counts.  Yet, in a nation where the Administration implements regulations that conflict with the intent of the law, citizens forget, they have the clout.  In recent decades, Americans are reluctant to go to the polls.  

When the populace does vote, and embrace their authentic power, image, or electability, govern most decisions.  Candidates are sold to the people.  Pretty or popular persons are thought profound.  Yes, money moves much, perhaps all.  Certainly, the power of wealth is influencing the state Children’s Health Insurance Program.  Consider the Bush proposal.

[President Bush] He has proposed about $5 billion in new funding for children’s health insurance over five years, for a total of $30 billion — an amount that the Congressional Budget Office says would be too little to keep covering even just the number of children enrolled in the program now.

George W. Bush is not alone in his desire to under-fund the needs of the nation and its residents.  Most Americans want to keep their earned income in their personal pocket.  Residents in my region proclaim property taxes are too high; they must be cut.  The possibility alone has caused massive layoffs in this community.  City workers were awarded pink slips.  Immediately vandalism rose in public facilities.

Weeks ago, the nation heard of the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis and discovered there are thousands more troubled structures throughout the States.  As we, the people, spend billions, trillions on defense, our infrastructure crumbles beneath us.  Our progeny fall to pieces before our eyes, and we do little to help them.  Indeed, the rules are changed so that less of the littlest people will be cared for.

Rules May Limit Health Program Aiding Children
By Robert Pear
The New York Times
August 21, 2007

The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess.  In interviews, they said the changes were intended to return the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said yesterday that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children and would impose standards that could not be met.

“We are horrified at the new federal policy,” said Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey. “It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children.”

Stan Rosenstein, the Medicaid director in California, said the new policy was “highly restrictive, much more restrictive than what we want to do.”

The poverty level for a family of four is set by the federal government at $20,650 in annual income. Many states have received federal permission to cover children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four.  In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent– $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

As with issues like immigration, the White House is taking action on its own to advance policies that have not been embraced by Congress.

Immigration is not the only issue of import that calls the White House to action.  Frequently, the Bush Administration wields its power to protect entrepreneurs and discounts the value of employees.  The Executive Branch plans to do so again and again, much to the detriment of everyday folk.  Only weeks ago, workers died in mines notably too dangerous for man.  Wealthy businessmen or women, such as the colliery owner prefer to pay fines when “government” imposed industry standards [laws enacted for the good of the greater community] are not meet.

Mattingly: Robert Murray bought the Crandall Canyon mine only a year ago and, until the accident, it was one of his safest mines.  

But “Keeping Them Honest,” we checked government records, and found they list Murray as the head of 19 mining operations in five states.  Only seven are active underground mines, and four of them have injury rates above the national average.

 At the Galatia mine in southern Illinois, the rate of injuries has exceeded the national average every year since Murray bought the mine in 1998. The rate of injuries was almost cut in half from 2003 to 2006, but the mine has also racked up over 3,400 citations in the last 2 1/2 years, 968 so far this year, with nearly a quarter considered significant and substantial.

Ellen Smith, Mine Safety & Health News:  You wonder how that many violations can build up in that little amount of time.  Now, you have to remember he’s challenging a lot of the citations, but when you look, he’s also paid a lot in fines.

Mattingly: He paid almost $700,000 in fines from 2005 and 2006. So far, this year Galatia has been hit with 31 major citations, each exceeding $10,000. That’s more violations than any other mine in the country and second in total fines.  

(on camera) And Galatia wasn’t Murray’s first big problem. In 2003 managers at his mining company in Kentucky were found guilty of violating safety standards and attempting to cover it up. The company was ordered to pay a $306,000 fine.

(voice-over) Requests for comments from officials at Murray Energy were not answered. CNN asked Murray about safety records of his other underground mines at a news conference Monday.  Murray said he would only talk about Crandall Canyon.

Mine owner Robert Murray apparently recognizes that he, just as George W. Bush can control the conversation.  People will not protest loudly or for long.  It is [usually] safer to talk about the weather.  Let us discuss our current climate conditions.

Citizens in the Midwest experienced rains such as they have never seen.  Cities built on concrete cannot absorb the deluge.  The few trees that budgets maintain are toppled.  No matter.  

We have come to expect and accept global warming as a fact.  We do little or nothing to change the course nature now takes.  We discount the health of the planet, just as we disregard the well being of our babies or our own bodies.  Man does not seem to recognize a need for the oxygen foliage and flora provide, evident by deforestation and the lack of tree-lined streets.  Nor does he or she realize the health of our children correlates to the physical and moral condition of our broader communities.

Today, winds gust at speeds not recorded in year’s prior.  Hurricane Dean in Mexico, is now on people’s radar.  I am reminded of how, during the 2005 hurricane season, people in the plains expressed their resentment for the possibility that they may need to supplement the effort to rebuild with Federal funds.  Some thought those that live in areas such as Louisiana and Florida silly to request financial aid from those that reside in other areas of the country.  The cry was, “It is not my concern.”  Followed by “Why should I care?”

Perhaps, I can respond to that query in a meaningful manner.  When we do not care for others or their needs; ultimately, we will likely realize we did not care for ourselves.  We are indeed, all connected.

Children’s Healthcare Is a No-Brainer
By Amy Goodman
Truth Dig
July 24, 2007

Deamonte Driver had a toothache. He was 12 years old. He had no insurance, and his mother couldn’t afford the $80 to have the decayed tooth removed. He might have gotten it taken care of through Medicaid, but his mother couldn’t find a dentist who accepted the low reimbursements. Instead, Deamonte got some minimal attention from an emergency room, his condition worsened and he died.  Deamonte was one of 9 million children in the U.S. without health insurance.

Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that will cover poor children in the U.S.

The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it. The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.

The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as “young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris.

According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, says: “It is a public health good in and of itself and will save lives to increase the tobacco tax.  Cigarettes kill and cigarettes provoke lung cancer, and every child and every [other] human being we can, by increasing the cigarette tax, stop from smoking or slow down from smoking is going to have a public health benefit, save taxpayers money from the cost of the effects of smoking and tobacco.”

Two programs serve as the health safety net for poor and working-class children: Medicaid and SCHIP (pronounced “s-chip”).  SCHIP is a federal grant program that allows states to provide health coverage to children who belong to working families earning too much to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance when their employers do not provide it.  It’s the SCHIP funding that is now being debated in Congress.

The Children’s Defense Fund has published scores of stories similar to Deamonte’s. Children like Devante Johnson of Houston. At 13, Devante was fighting advanced kidney cancer.  His mother tried to renew his Medicaid coverage, but bureaucratic red tape tied up the process.  By the time Devante got access to the care he needed, his fate was sealed. He died at the age of 14, in Bush’s home state, only miles from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, one of the world’s leading cancer treatment and research facilities.

Our children depend on us and we ignore their pleas and their plight.  Possibly, we are as we remember. Our parents counted the available cash, they pinched pennies, or saved for the rainy day.  Perhaps, we are far worse.  We are not the providers our mothers and fathers were, and there in lies the problem.  

The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000.

 We cannot be certain these numbers are accurate.  As stated earlier, the current Administration tweaked the accounts.  Thus, what we believe to be true may be as dependent as our children are.  Nonetheless, we must understand that uninsured children will suffer even if Congress can override an expected Presidential veto.  

As of late August 2007, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program Bill [SCHIP] is not the healthy plan it was intended to be.  For months, the White House wrangled with members of the House and Senate; they argued over the finer points of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, The cost and the conditions necessary for application were in question.  Lawmakers see a need to expand the program.  The Bush Administration favors cuts.  While Congress was in recess, during the quiet days of summer, the Executive Branch stepped in and stripped the law.  The effectiveness of a popular children’s health insurance program is now lost.  In its current form, the Bill is but a skeleton, bare to the bone.  New rules mandate States . . .

Establish that the child has been without health insurance for at least one year.

Assure the federal government that at least 95 percent of children currently eligible for S-CHIP or Medicaid are enrolled in one of those programs.

Make sure that an S-CHIP family’s contribution to its health care costs (premiums, co-pays and deductibles) is only slightly less than the family would pay for a comparable private insurance plan.

One can only sigh as Ann Kohler, New Jersey Deputy Commissioner of Human Services does.  She shrugs and states this part of the law is unfair.  “I cannot imagine any state being able to comply with that.”

Judith Solomon, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, used to run the outreach program for Connecticut’s S-CHIP program. She says you couldn’t get that enrollment rate up to 95 percent even if you knocked on every door in the state looking for eligible kids. There are language barriers — people who just don’t want public assistance — and it’s a population that’s always in flux.

“Children are born, children age out, they reach age 19 and are no longer eligible,” Solomon says. “Family income goes up, family income goes down; it’s a very dynamic situation.”

Once again, we are reminded, the elders focus on financial matters more than physical realities.  In this nation, people are not the priority.  Political gestures, those that favor friends, take precedence.  

For the President, insurance companies are more likely to fill his pockets than the poor and impoverished will.  For we, the people, particularly those whose purses are empty, might we stop and consider what brings us greater fulfillment.  Is it our children, our community, or our self-imposed ignorance.  Might we embrace empathy, love our neighbors more than the almighty buck, endow our children with quality health care services, and enjoy what truly matters, people and the profound affect we have on the life of our community.

Sources for State Children’s Health Insurance Program . . .

State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  U.S. Department of Health.

The Number of Uninsured Americans At An All time High.  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. August 29, 2006

Who’s uninsured in 2007? It’s more than just the poor, By Julie Appleby.  USA Today.

Going Without; America’s Uninsured Children. Covering Kids and Families. August 2005

Bush Administration Outlines New SCHIP Standards That Would Keep Program Limited to Low-Income Children. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. August 21, 2007

Surveillance for Asthma — United States, 1980–1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Updated 2002

Americans Relying More on Prescription Drugs, Report Says, By Robert Pear.  The New York Times. December 3, 2004

pdf Americans Relying More on Prescription Drugs, Report Says, By Robert Pear.  The New York Times. December 3, 2004

PrescriptionDrugTrends. Kaiser Family Foundation. May 2007

Americans see fat as normal as weights rise: study. Reuters. August 7. 2007

Global Warming Fast Facts. National Geographic News. Updated June 14, 2007

Forest Holocaust.  National Geographic News.

Setting Urban Tree Canopy Goals. American forest.

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance, By Robert Pear.  The New York Times. July 15, 2007

Letter to The Honorable Max Baucus, Chairman of the Committee on Finance.

Belief that Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction Has Increased Substantially. The Harris Poll® #57. July 21, 2006

Many Eligible for Child Health Plan Have No Idea, By Kevin Sack.  The New York Times. August 22, 2007

pdf Many Eligible for Child Health Plan Have No Idea, By Kevin Sack.  The New York Times. August 22, 2007

Air Pollution and Children’s Health.  Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment .

Child Health Insurance Stalls in Congress, Plans to Renew Program Bog Down as Lawmakers Debate Funding, Philosophy. By Christopher Lee.  Washington Post. Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A04

pdf Child Health Insurance Stalls in Congress, Plans to Renew Program Bog Down as Lawmakers Debate Funding, Philosophy. By Christopher Lee.  Washington Post. Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A04

Enrolling Children in Medicaid and SCHIP: Insights from Focus Groups with Low-Income Parents. Prepared by:  Michael Perry and Julia Paradise.  Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. May 2007

Rules May Limit Health Program Aiding Children By Robert Pear.  The New York TimesAugust 21, 2007

Anderson Cooper; 360 Degrees.  Transcripts. August 22, 2007

25 dead as storms collide in Midwest, Plains Cable News Network August 23, 2007

Dean Likely To Return To Mexico.  CBS News. August 22, 2007

Children’s Healthcare Is a No-Brainer By Amy Goodman.  Truth Dig. July 24, 2007

New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan, By Christopher Lee. Washington Post. Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A04

pdf New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan, By Christopher Lee. Washington Post. Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A04

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Again, I stood alone on the corner, as I had for months.  My intent was as it has been for years; I seek to achieve world peace.  However, after a short while I realized, today was like no other.  I received the usual smiles and signals of serenity; nonetheless, the number of shuns, shrieks, and screams were as they had never been before.  I held the same sign that I embrace each Saturday.  The words “Love Not War!” are displayed for all to see.
My attire advances my message.  Each afternoon, as I plead for harmony, I am dressed in white.  My arm is out-stretched.  My forefinger and middle finger are extended above my head as I offer a recognizable gesture.  I only ask we give peace a chance.  

Initially, as people passed me on this busy street, life was good.  It has been for as long as I can recall.  An automobile would pass.  The occupants would toot their car horn.  Numerous individuals would exchange nods or note that they too yearn for global tranquility.  I would express my pleasure aloud.  Repeatedly, as I encounter my fellow citizens I exclaim, “Thank you.”  My salutations of joy for our like desire fill the air.  It is a pleasure to experience so many individuals in a shared quest for world harmony.

Then, suddenly, a car came very close.  A United Sates flag was flying high above the chassis of this vehicle.  An elderly man slowly rolled down the window and leaned toward me.  Good naturedly he inquired, “Where is my love?”  I grinned and said, “It is all around us.”  I continued, “We get what we give,” or so I have long believed.  However, as the afternoon wore on, I wondered was that so.

On this day, I was bombarded with flailing fingers, thumbs down, waves that connote wrongdoing, and of course, the third digit on either hand crossed my path.  While these expressions were less than warm, they did not concern me.  Individuals may have a difference of opinion.  I accept and appreciate that.  Each of those that offered a characteristic contrary conviction politely stated their case.

My reason for concern came from the few that expressed their disdain with fury.  One man came very close to the corner, rowed down the window, and shouted, “Your actions support the terrorist.”  He asserted, “You are a traitor.”  I listened and said nothing.  I contemplated the concept.  

I thought of how I love this country.  I never had a notion to leave the shores of America.  I long to ensure that the United States of America will be exemplary.  Others will look to us and trust mankind can “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Indeed, my hope is that by our actions we will illustrate that “all men are created equal.”  Admittedly, my hope is that if we are all truly good to our fellow man, here and abroad, there will be no reason for resistance.  As this chap shrieked, I offered no reply, not verbally, or otherwise.  The young man sped off.

I contemplated terrorism.  I wondered.  Who is a greater threat, those that kill in the name of freedom and justice while dressed in American uniforms, or those murder the persons that they deem “the enemy.”  Reveries of scholar, Sam Keen filled my head.  I recall the text, “Faces of the Enemy,” and the message.  The tome . . .

Examines the techniques of propaganda used to teach us “to hate all the people our relatives hate.”  Some 400 posters and cartoons show how enemies are dehumanized by portraying them as enemies of god, barbarians, terrorists, sadists and aggressors so that we will be able to kill without remorse or pity.

I think of this frequently.  When I hear Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush speak, I trust that the “overeducated at Harvard and Princeton,” former Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and contributing editor of Psychology Today, Sam Keen is, for me, correct.  Speeches made by Bin Laden, or Bush, are at times, interchangeable.  Each tells us to hate an enemy.

You have  . . . defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood,  . . . and tampered with our security.  We will treat you in the same way.

I trust to my core, I sponsor no violence or campaigns that promote intimidation.  Bombs and brutality are not a means to the end I endorse.  As I stand solid and resolute, I hum the tune, “give peace a chance.”

Moments passed; perhaps it was many minutes later.  I was so lost in thoughts I do not recall now.  The lovely city bus driver entered the intersection.  From half a block away, I saw her smile, her kind face, and as I do every Saturday, I experienced her delight at the sight of me.  She beamed.  I could see, even from a distance her fingers were positioned as mine were.  We each granted the other our traditional gesture.  Together we promote peace.

I have long stated, when we connect with another human in a loving manner we can, and will, receive what we bestow.  I believe Newton’s Third Law of Motion governs the universe.  Yet, sadly, some have yet to realize that a reactive stance will elicit the same in kind.

I recall a discussion in cyberspace just over ten months ago.  The question was posed.

If you had to make a conscious, affirmative choice, would you rather win? Or would you rather be right?

“The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving.”
    ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes [Prominent Writer, Physician]

The discussion that ensued astounded me.  In truth, the query itself puzzled me.  I do not believe in the concept of victory.  For me, if one triumphs, they too are defeated.  I believe the only absolute “right” is love, which translates to peace.  

“Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi, ‘Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,’ May 3,1919

Many muse, “Love is an action.”  Indeed, I believe it is.  Conversely, I postulate, “Fear is a reaction.”  As I stand before those that support a conflict that kills young, old, innocent, and innocence I realize many feel a need to defend their claim.  “We must win the war before we leave Iraq.”  These were the words yelled to me from another open car window.

Again, I perpend.  “Win” and “war” are constructs that I think untenable.  Nevertheless, we as a nation are obsessed with each.  Americans, and perhaps citizens worldwide, are quick on the trigger, swift when we wish to snipe, careless when critical.  We welcome a Department of Defense.  Many believe weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological, nuclear, or words, serve society well.  

People do not accede a need to pursue peace profoundly.  The populace professes to believe, we must “fight” for freedom.  I inquire, can we not all be free to feel as we do and still be civil, calm, and considerate of our fellow man.  Some state, humans living in harmony is but a dream.  I think the dream is possible.  

I sigh as I consider this series of confrontational events, all in a single day bring no serenity.  I weigh what is occurring.  The sun was bright, the humidity high.  I could feel the heat of the summer day scorch my skin.  Hurricane strength winds were off in the distance.  Might the moon influence the attitudes of people as they pass by?  Perhaps the temperature, the hour, or the culture of combat that is pervasive in this country created what came next.

As I stood at my usual post on the northwest corner, I faced the traffic traveling away from the beach.  Red, yellow and green lights directed the wave of cars.  Ever and anon, drivers see me as they sit stopped, before they are given the right of way.  Many beep prior to reaching the intersection.  Others wait until they are closer.  On occasion, an individual will decide to respond after they are farther down the road.  Some want to read my sign, reflect, and than throw caution to the wind.  Whatever people chose to do is fine with me, or so I thought.  I had not contemplated an extreme confrontation.

It was close to one post-meridian time.  The red light that held westward bound cars at bay changed to green.  A very large, shiny, and new truck, cut across two lanes of traffic.  The driver quickly raced towards me.  This vehicle had been in the farthest left lane, nowhere near the curb on which I stood.  The lorry careened.  Its occupants clearly wished to be close to me.  I saw the swift motion and feared the automobile would jump the sidewalk.

As the rig approached, I saw the side window was open.  An extremely rotund man sat in passenger seat.  He and the stout fellow steering the motor vehicle, each leaned towards me.  Their skin was tanned, faces flush, veins were bulging, and their voices very loud.  They deliberately declared, “You f**ing loser!  You f*ing c*!  You f*ing bit*!”  I stood still.  I said nothing.  Words escaped me.  I only knew my thought.  I wish you peace and love.  I hope you will find these.  My desire is that we all will.

However, once more I am haunted by the vastness of defensiveness.  For me, the claim that self-defense is justifiable encourages destructive engagement and advances assaults.  Yet, that is the battle cry.  President George W. Bush proclaims . . .

I want to thank my fellow Americans for caring about the subject of peace, and that’s what I’m here to discuss.

We meet at a time of great consequence for the security of our nation, a time when the defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom, a time with echoes in our history . . .

Like an earlier generation, America is answering new dangers with firm resolve.  No matter how long it takes, no matter how difficult the task, we will fight the enemy, and lift the shadow of fear, and lead free nations to victory.  (Applause.)

Like an earlier generation, America is pursuing a clear strategy with our allies to achieve victory.  Our immediate strategy is to eliminate terrorist threats abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home.  The theory here is straightforward: terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security.  When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks.  We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide.

Never does the Commander-In-Chief mention the horror he released on civilians.  Nor does he consider the reality that violence begets greater violence.  Brutality increases exponentially when we engage in battle.  Yet, this is what people often do.  They bump and bruise their fellow global citizens all in the name of achieving tranquility.

At times, the downtrodden in exasperation do as the self-proclaimed “masters” of the universe do.  They wage war for what they think right.  The poor and mistreated fight in defense of freedom, as might we all.  Perchance, those defined as “plebeians” determine they must defend themselves for those in power so eagerly attack.  Parents may be the authority figure doing as was done to them.  Peers may also adopt a repressive role.  Interestingly, often, the “prominent” population is numerically less large.

We might consider the circumstances of well-known Civil Rights Leader, Malcolm X.  In his endeavor to seek liberty and justice for all, he experienced as many Americans do, infinite inequity.  In frustration, Malcolm expressed his fury.  He spoke of the need to defend self, just as the President does.

“It doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense.  I don’t call it violence when it’s self-defense; I call it intelligence.”

Few recall that late in his life, Malcolm X made a pilgrimage that seem to prompt a change from within.  While the revered revolutionary had little time left on Earth after his holy journey, there was reason to believe that ultimately Malcolm X would have embraced non-violence.  Still, in this climate of conflict most prefer to recall the man that stood strong in the face of danger, as he declared . . .

“The price of freedom is death.”

The slain leader did not live to see peace; nor have we reached that preferred pinnacle.  We can only hope that Malcolm rests in peace.  In his name, we may wish to pursue the prospect, however, belatedly.

My day on the corner gives me little reason for hope.  While the vast majority joined me in peaceful expressions, the experience reminded me of what I fear is too often true.  George W. Bush may have said this best.

America’s military is fighting in many theaters, yet always for the same cause. We seek to preserve freedom and peace for ourselves and for our friends.

I observe that often, American’s, our followers, and those they label foe only wish to establish peace for their pals.  A person, or a nation, given any unforeseen circumstances can easily be considered an adversary.  A slip, a slight, a misstep in the mind of this superpower or that supposed subversive can alienate an ally.  One never knows what can trigger an attack.

In cyberspace, the same dynamic is evident.  People posit an opinion, and those that disagree lash out in defense of their stance.  An offensive retort is often delivered as a bullet might be.  Words when used as weapons can pierce a heart and soul.  Indeed, frequently, that seems to be the intent.

I return to the inquiry posited in a local Internet neighborhood; would we rather be right or win.  Might we consider if any of us think ourselves righteous in comparison to another then we lose the empathy essential for peace.  We cannot win a battle and lose a war.  Any confrontation weakens us all.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
~ Mahatma Gandhi, “Non-Violence in Peace and War”

Almost a century ago, we fought the War to end all Wars.

The number of men mobilised by both sides: the central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey), and the allied powers (Britain and Empire, France, Belgium, Russia, Italy, USA), totalled over 65 million.

When the fighting was finally over, no-one could tell exactly how many had been killed but historians estimate that up to 10 million men lost their lives on the battlefield – and another 20 million were wounded.

We declared that destruction, The Great War.  Decades later the globe was again on fire.  Certainly, this more recent conflict would bring world peace.  Countless skirmishes occurred before and after each of these battles.  The cycle never seems to end.  Fighting is accepted as a fact of life.

There are hostilities in our homes, fractures in our factories.  Campaigns of cruelty in cyberspace are common.  Offices are not exempt; offensive rhetoric lives large in every cubbyhole.  On the streets, the battle continues.  Gangs come to blows, and a little girl, all of five feet tall, is attacked for holding high a banner that pleads for peace.

Still, the virtuous declare victory, while the battle rages on.  Might we consider if we truly wish to achieve harmony, “mission accomplished” must be the manifestation of shared love.

Defend the Right to Love . . .

U.S. Constitution: Preamble. FindLaw.

Text: ‘Bin-Laden tape.’ By British Broadcasting Company.  January 19, 2006

Faces of the Enemy. By Sam Keen.

Question of the Day – Hard Choices Edition. By shanikka.  My Left Wing.  October 11, 2006

President Discusses War on Terror. National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair.  Office of the Press Secretary.  March 8, 2005

Malcolm -X.org.

The War to End All Wars.  British Broadcasting Company.  Tuesday, 10 November, 1998

The Great War.  Community Television of Southern California. British Broadcasting Company.  

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended. Office of the Press Secretary. May 1, 2003

Bush: Iraq is one victory in war on terror, Cable News Network.  Friday, May 2, 2003

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Tonight, I am reminded of how the results of a report resonated throughout America earlier in the year; 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse.  As the Gay and Lesbian population prepare to discuss issues important to their community, inclusive of their desire for more than a “civil union;”  I wonder.  Why, or when is marriage desirable.  Why and when is it not.  Presidential hopefuls plan to delicately touch on the subject of “same sex marriage.”  One might muse, matrimony no matter the mix, is a difficult dynamic to consider.

Weeks ago, I discovered the term “Mrs.” is a source of much angst.  Apparently, the title in the minds of many dishonors a woman, rather than reveres her.
 When I used the description to discuss a Presidential candidate the label was considered degrading or dismissive.  For some, the word spelled out was more offensive.  For others the expression in either form denied the achievements and accomplishments of the Senator from New York.  It mattered not that I, a traditionalist, with a well-documented history of Progressive philosophies, long thought the usage of “Missus” a sign of respect.  Explanations of how and why, for me, in the written form, abbreviations are less honorable did little to quell the apprehensions of those anxious to argue.  

Those concerned were not comforted when they realized mainstream authors and I used the same identical term to describe numerous highly professional, and esteemed woman in the past.  It seemed odd those references received no reprimands.  Nonetheless, in this exchange, the presumed perception seemed to be, if a woman is as successful as this Senator is, mere mention of her marriage negates her worth.

Dictionary definitions produced greater debate.  It seems a single word can be classified as complimentary or critical.  Perhaps, that is the problem.  As a society, we struggle with the idea of independence, interdependence, dependence, and what it means to be married or single.

Much of our identity is lost in a label, or perchance, we gain as we garner a title or two.  Women may feel a greater need to distinguish themselves as distinctive, whole, on their own, separate and strong, mentally as well as physically.  Women want to be wanted, as do men; however, the perception is a woman needs a man, is dominated by her partner.  She cannot survive on her own.

Our culture clings to the construct women require a man and ignores the fact that no matter what our gender, we welcome the support of another.  Thus, when a study shows more persons, men or women live without a mate, we wonder.  Why?

In our daily lives, talk of nuptials is omnipresent.  Is she married; is he?  If not, why not.  On most applications, we are asked of our martial status as though this explains who we are as people.  Some are embarrassed if they have yet to marry.  The four percent that state they have not engaged in physical intimacy are considered strange.

Individuals yearn for togetherness.  Yet, they run from the prospect.  Women and men, everyone searches for someone special to share their lives with.  They peek around every corner.  They stumble into intimacy.  Then, abruptly announce, “I am uncomfortable with closeness.”  Some say, it is not you; it is I.  Others ruminate; there are issues.  

An acquaintance ended an engagement.  Two weeks ago, the day after her decision, this gorgeous girl expressed her distress.  She seemed to believe that if she were married, her life would be marvelous, if not, surely, the outlook would be grim.  Yesterday, this lovely lady smiled and stated, she could not be happier.  Jill thought she was too dependent on her honey.  She reflects, “I was not ready.”  Nonetheless, she is still certain she rather be married.  For Jill, family is vital.  She wants children.

Another acquaintance believes family may not be available when you crave a connection.  When you most covet a caring shoulder to cry on, or a hand to hold, blood relatives or good pals may not be there for you, for her.  Doris avows.

Having someone in your life to share all your ups and downs is imperative for a healthy heart soul and mind.  Trying to find a friend or family member who has the time to listen, or are able to help you or celebrate with you, at a specific time is sometimes very difficult to find.  A good partner is there for you when you really need them and lucky are you if you have one.

For years, Doris has had the good fortune of being with one she thinks beautiful, inside and out.  [Personally, I think providence cannot create what manifests.  Nevertheless, I trust that people are often astounded by their exquisite experiences.]  The two are not legally coupled; however, they are rarely apart.  A casual observer would know they are committed.  

Perhaps, for Doris being with a person that is genuinely her partner means more than progeny or pals do.  This woman is as many; she craves a solid, strong connection with a singular someone.  Doris is connubial.  She and the individual she loves need no certificate to validate their devotion.  They are wedded.

I marvel as I assess the idea of marriage.  Why do so many women [and men] actively seek companionship, a partner, a soul mate, and yet, then say they choose to remain single.  I also wonder how many are as I am.  I love being single.  I always have.  In my own life, seeking companionship was not a thought.  Never did I feel a need for camaraderie.  I do not feel alone, or lonely.  Attending events untethered, for me, is at times, often, preferable.  I love my own company.

As others have, I realize on occasion, I also have done.  People yearn only for a physical intercourse.  They have no desire to experience authentic intimacy.  Genuine emotional closeness can be too frightening, or perhaps, too painful.  In my own life, my parents’ divorce took a toll.  Ten days after their twentieth wedding anniversary, my Mom and natural father terminated their ties.  For me, that memory is intense.  It looms large in my mind; it affected my heart.  I did not wish to chance a similar split in my life; nor did I want any child of mine to feel as I felt.

Months before the report on single women was released, I was asked to consider marriage.  Startled, frightened, and yet, able to acknowledge a closeness to an individual who is important to me, I became consumed with such a decision.  The dichotomy involved is for me, inescapable.  I devoured articlesreferring to the study.  I listened to broadcasts.  I longed to understand the reason other women decided as they did.  I inquired.  One woman wrote of her experience.  She also assessed what might be true for other feminine persons.

I am married.

I could be happy married or single.  Sometimes I’m glad I’m married and sometimes I wish I were single.  By a high percentage, I am happier married.  The longer I live the happier I am being married.  However,  I don’t necessarily think that is true for others.

Ah, this woman also observes as I do.  Many that are together, ’til death do they part, are not joyful in their union.  Perhaps the pleasure comes from within.  Mae believes it does.

I am happily, sublimely, cherished, joyfully wed.

The secret I think is to find yourself, be true to that person, make her be comfortable in her own skin . . . and sometimes someone special comes along and sometimes not.

I think being good alone is the place to be.  Being good together is then easier.

Being with someone should be a choice, not some driven necessity like breathing.  I love and adore my husband and I would be devastated should a time come when I must go on without him, however I would go forward and fill my life differently and make adjustments and find joy in other beings and doings.

For me, my journey continues all over the map with my partner and, even within our marriage, sometimes alone.  It feels good both ways.

Bliss is perchance a belief.  If you choose to believe the path will be harmonious, then you will do all that you can to ensure it will be.  Possibly, the effort is evident in your emotional balance.  Some say marriage is what you make of it; likely, life is.  After absorbing much pain in a relationship that was alien to me, I realized my own reactions and perceptions created the calm or the chaos that came.

Often, in my experience, we forget that our life does not have to be as our parents’ was.  In the present, we respond to our history.  We expect what is familiar to us.  As I mentioned, that was my fear.  Danae shared a similar story.

“I am single at 60 and have been for all my adult life.  That is in large part to my experience with my parents’ uncommunicative and extremely dysfunctional marriage.  With that as imprinting, why would I want to recreate it?!  Make no mistake about it, I would have.  Without deep and intense psychotherapy so that one can understand and clear out, as much as possible, the childhood traumas, one will recreate their past, adding to it their own innate spin of dysfunction.

After my successful experience with therapy, I still have questions and trepidation about partnering, as by this time I have my habits of living and moving in and out of activities and acquaintances at my whim.  Plus, which, as I am older, so are my partner prospects.  And even though I am in vibrant health and of youthful demeanor, by contrast, many men that would be age appropriate are not.  Add to that the all-too-common trait of men wanting female partners that are younger than they, and you have a recipe for a dearth of possibility.  I realize it only takes one to make a match, but I am also aware that I am unwilling to kiss any more frogs in order to find a prince.

So, in the face of all that, I have asked the Universe to deliver someone so delightful to me and vice versa, that will be just right for me to partner with (and again vice versa).  With that mantra and visualization, we shall see what may materialize.  I will also add that it is important for me to be with someone who wants to fashion/create a relationship based on who WE are and our desires–not what society wishes to mandate.

I think that is a thoughtful answer, practical, witty, and wondrous.  There is much to consider when choosing a life partner.  Actually, frequently we search for what we know.  If our mother or father is able to converse without anger, amicable, and approachable, then we are apt to pursue persons that have a similar demeanor.  If Dad or Mom was demanding, demeaning, and domineering, we expect that our future spouse will be as well.  That too may feel comfortable.  Characteristics such as these are normal to us.  At least we are accustomed with the dynamics that develop when with someone that debases another.

For Jenna what was common in her youth seems to be a family tradition.  She often expresses her amusement and wonderment when she evaluates the martial status of many of her relatives.  Aunts, uncles, and cousins, numerous individuals in her extended family never marry.  Those that do have children; thus, the bloodline is alive and well.  Jenna reflects.

Being the child of a single mother who was raised by a single mother, I have come to realize that I am not incomplete without a man in my life.  Sure, I always expected to get married, but it didn’t happen.  Whether it was a subconscious choice or not, I cannot say.

I can say that there are times I wish I had a man in my life (husband), but these don’t last long.  Usually, when something needs fixing or moving around the house [I think having a husband might be nice.]  Two incomes in my household would have come in handy.  But if I got married, who is to say I would have married a handy guy with a good job.

When I hear ladies I know complaining about their husbands for one reason or another, I usually am pleased that I don’t have to deal with such things.

I am happy with the life I’ve got.  To quote a song from the musical “Chicago” “Oh I’m no one’s wife, but Oh, I love my life and all that jazz.”

Jenna is a sensible soul.  Interestingly, her family is emotionally and physically closer than most.  She is only alone when in her bedroom.  Jenna is perhaps more actively involved with relations than any person I know.  Her interactions with loved ones are abundant.  Indeed, Jenna lives with another family member.  She maintains infinite lasting unions.

Jenna, admittedly is as many, if not all.  She craves a true and lasting connection.  She has them.  Her partners are labeled, mother, sister, brother-in-law, cousin, nephew, and niece.

Numerous individuals wish to establish a family of their own making.  They enter into a union or two, only to conclude there is no such thing as wedded bliss.  For a few, the endeavor was exhausting.  Others wish to do it again, and again, until they get it right.  Millions long to meet Mister or Miss Right.  Still others prefer to settle in with a friend, a lover, no legal strings attached.

Living Together [a.k.a. cohabitation, or unmarried partner households]:

According to the 2000 Census, there are currently about 11 million people living with an unmarried partner in the U.S.  This includes both same-sex and different-sex couples.  ?- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000?(If this number doesn’t match the number you found from another source, read How We Get Our Numbers, below).???There are 9.7 million Americans living with an unmarried different-sex partner and 1.2 million American living with a same-sex partner.  11% of unmarried partners are same-sex couples.?- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

41% of American women ages 15-44 have cohabited (lived with an unmarried different-sex partner) at some point.  This includes 9% of women ages 15-19, 38% of women ages 20-24, 49% of women ages 25-29, 51% of women ages 30-34, 50% of women ages 35-39, and 43% of women ages 40-44.  ?- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States.”  Vital Health and Statistics Series 23, Number 22, Department of Health and Human Services, 2002.

The number of unmarried couples living together increased 72% between 1990 and 2000.?- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

The number of unmarried couples living together has increased tenfold between 1960 and 2000.  ?- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Still, living with oneself is more common in this country.  Twenty-seven [27] million American households consist of one.  Twenty-five million domestic dwellings house a mother, father, and child.  According to Pamela Smock, author of “Cohabitation in the United States,” Annual Review of Sociology, fifty-five percent [55%] of different-sex cohabitors marries within 5 years of moving in together.  Forty percent [40%] of these couples separate during these early years.  The remaining ten percent [10%] stay together; however, they no not marry for five years or longer.

There is much to consider when we enter the world of identity, particularly for women.  Females are more easily defined as a wife, a mother, a lover, or a friend.  Women do not wish to lose their identity.  Men, do not usually consider the possibility.  The male of the species is perceived as strong and secure.  However, we know men are as are we all, social animals. They too seek sanctuary in an intimate relationship.  Men are said to be happier, healthier perhaps, even more successful when married.  Studies assert this to be true.

When a “lady” looks at the life of a bride, she knows there is much to contemplate.  A proposal or the likelihood of one might prompt a girl to ask herself, how will I see myself once married.  She may posit how will others perceive me.  Questions abound; will I be caged, confined, or limited in any way.  A woman contemplating a legal bond [bondage] may feel her destiny is determined.  Nuptials are her fate.  

The female of the species may feel faint as she considers the idea of marriage or divorce.  The possibility of a divorce may devastate a woman.  She might say, as I have, I do not wish to be a statistic or a fatality.  Oh, the role, the responsibility, what does it mean to be a spouse.  Diane thinks she knows all too well.  For her, the life of a wife is not to her liking.

I’ve been married/divorced twice and [I am] not planning on marrying again due to the history of my marriages.

I now have control of my own life, I can watch what I want to watch on TV and particularly like having control of my finances, – I have more wealth now than I ever did in either marriage – the men seemed to like to spend more than they had in the bank.  I like being single.

Another female, also charmingly conjugal, then deliberately divided from her spouse ponders the potential.  She approaches and avoids as she assesses the possibility.  Greta gravitates towards bliss.  For her, harmony may mean she and he are free to be similar; yet different.

Since I divorced I raised my two children alone.  I had to work 2-3 jobs to support them because I had no family close by and I tried to keep the children in the same healthy environment and good schools.  All the sacrifices were worth it.  

 . . .  [M]y daughter is a physician and my artist, and good looking Eddie is finishing [his studies at] the University.  My daughter has a beautiful little girl and is expecting a second one in June.  As far as my life, it has been better than most married female friends.  I consider myself lucky and with many blessings.  

I am almost finished with [my schooling.  I will graduate with a] BA in Sociology.  Two years ago, I traveled to 5 countries in Europe, and studied Italian in Florence for one month.  

I met many nice men but nothing concrete has happened.  It does not matter.  I live a very full life and count my blessing every day.

I don’t think I will marry again because I now think it won’t matter . . . .  [He] is free to leave when he wants to and I am free to do the same.  Life is too short to complicate things with marriage.  I already went through with that.  The main issue is respect, love and similar ideas, views of other cultures, also appreciation for traveling and having friends from all over the world.

Again, if the right man comes along, he will be most happy in my arms…guaranteed.  🙂

Crystal, after two failed attempts at marriage decidedly was happy; however, she wanted more, and was apprehensive.  She pondered what that might mean.  Crystal had her children to consider, and her history.  Matrimony may not be her strong suit.

I really enjoy being married.  I think being married to the right person makes a difference.  You should really talk a great deal before marriage and discuss important issues before you say I do.  If there are a lot of red flags don’t do it.

Tom and I took a class for Blended Families at our church for a year before we got engaged.  We wanted to get educated about the issues that we would face.

Sigh; there are so many notions, emotions, questions, and answers.  No wonder individuals say they are happily single, as they continue to seek that solitary soul that will ignite a fire in their heart, mind, spirit, and loins.

Personally, I pondered all these questions.  I contemplated the conclusions others shared.  For years, I vacillated, uncertain how I feel.  I still do.  Throughout the course of decades, my own ramblings might seem confused.  I have faith that the way we feel on one day differs from what we sense on the next.  

However, without fail, I have expressed a strong belief in the value of interdependence.  I hasten to add, although I welcome closeness, I want no one too near to me.  I think the institution of marriage is magnificent.  Those that do it well inspire me.  I admire any couple that cares enough to ensure their union is solid.  I trust the endeavor is not effortless.  A healthy, happy marriage is a constant and consistent labor of love.  I believe in the work and yet, I am unsure if I want to do it.  

Perhaps we are all a bit torn on the issue.  The dichotomy beckons us again and again.  

In this, the 2008 Presidential race nuptials are  considered an issue.  Indeed, they are in every election.  Politicians pose with their families in an attempt to remind constituents they are one of us.  People evaluate the partners.  The public speculates, will the wife [or husband] play a significant role.  Will she [or he] share the Oval Office with the person we designate President of the United States of America.

A curious crowd, the American people ponder.  What is the martial status of a candidate.  How many spouses did he or she have?  What is the nature of the relationships?  Is a husband or wife an asset or a deficit?  It seems some Presidential contenders benefit from the bond of marriage.  

Running mates were the topic of discussion in a recent Cable News Network program, 360 Degrees with Anderson Copper.  Among the Republicans, Mitt Romney married his high school sweetheart.  They have been together for near four decades.  Democratic candidates also have long enduring marriages.  

Bill and Hillary Clinton have seen tough times; yet, remain together.  John and Elizabeth Edwards have experienced immeasurable heartache.  The two lost a son; Elizabeth is living with cancer.  Nonetheless, with each passing day, their union grows stronger.  Michele and Barack Obama are solid, strong, and such a sweet couple.  All six of these persons as individuals are extremely accomplished.  

As Hillary reminds us, having a spouse can be a great strength.  A supportive partner can be an asset in any endeavor.

Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, mentioned Mr. Clinton at least eight times on Saturday — at one point talking about “Bill’s heart surgery” to illuminate her own travails with health care bureaucracy — and a few times on Sunday, most memorably when she said of Republicans, “Bill and I have beaten them before, and we will again.”

Perhaps, the Clintons will triumph.  Their relationship is certainly an advantage, or perhaps a hindrance depending on how individuals perceive the labels, husband, wife, Mister, or Missus.  

Regardless of their professional titles, these two are married.  Bill and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated they are together, for better or worse.  Each has stated they evolved separately and as a couple with thanks to the other.  Yet, some wish to deny or at least not use a term that validates their union.  I think the bond is beautiful.  I have faith that the conscious choice to unite says more about the individual than their career.

As I contemplate marriage and the affect of such an accord, I realize that for me, former President William “Bill” Jefferson Clinton said it best when he spoke at the memorial service held for Coretta Scott King.  After her passing, as dignitaries eulogized the esteemed leader one by one, each spoke of the First Lady of Civil Rights as a symbol.  

Then “Bill” took the stage.  For me, President Clinton put the entire issue into perspective.  I stood in awe as I listened.  Humanitarian, Clinton addressed the audience seated in the Church, and the country watching the ceremony on television.  Mister Clinton asked us to consider the person, the woman, the wife, and the mother, the living breathing being that “got angry and got hurt and had dreams and disappointments.”

Former First Lady, now Senator Clinton followed her husband in speaking about the woman, Coretta Scott King.  Missus Clinton related, and reminded us what it means to be married to a man, to a cause, and to one’s own personal commitments.  The Senator from New York shared.

And, in fact, she waited six months to give him an answer because she had to have known in her heart that she wasn’t just marrying a young man, but she was bringing her calling to be joined with his.

As they began their marriage and their partnership, it could not have been easy.  Because there they were, young, becoming parents, starting their ministry at a moment in history that they were called to lead.

Leadership is something that many who are called refuse to accept.  But Martin and Coretta knew they had no choice, and they lived their faith and their conviction.

Hillary Clinton: I think of those nights when she was putting the children to bed and worrying about the violence, worrying about the threats, worrying even about the bombs — and knowing that she couldn’t show any of the natural fear that any of us would feel.

The pressure that must have been for her — and she would turn to the Lord, who would answer her call for support by reminding her of her redemption.

When she went to Memphis, after her husband was killed, I remember as a college student listening in amazement to the news reports of this woman taking up her husband’s struggle on behalf of the dispossessed.

She said then — and she lived for the rest of her life in fulfillment — that she was there to continue his work to make all people truly free.

Perhaps, that is what is means to be married, to be a Missus.  When, as women, we believe in ourselves, then, we trust in our choices.  We understand to our core that we can grow greater when we are part of a whole.  A strong woman or man knows that they can never know it all, be it all, or evolve with only the information contained in their own gray matter.  They have faith.  As Aesop offered, “Union gives strength.”

A woman, understands that we can share with another and still be free and fulfilled.  We decide to share our soul and to open our hearts.  We accept the spirit of another.  Females intertwined are committed to a cause greater than self.  The memory of a partner is not lost.  A woman will do all within her power to assure the legacy of her love will live on.  

A Mister may suffer from the lack of a label.  He may not have the luxury a woman does.  A gentlemen, equally dedicated, devoted, and faithful to their spouse; does not have a title that speaks volumes to the world.  He is unable to declare his profound love openly without engaging in a lengthy conversation.

Granted for me, if I marry, I will do as my Mom did.  I will legally retain my maiden name and adopt the surname of my husband as my middle moniker.  Our names will be joined, as our spirit will be.  Nevertheless, I will not be disturbed if a person calls me, Missus X.  If I do not like my mate; if he [or she] is not lovable, if we are not united, and thankful that we found fulfillment in such a glorious sharing, then why did we marry.

Stamp me old-fashioned.  Brand me a traditionalist.  Perceive me as a Progressive that understands the meaning of union.  All may be true.  For me, as for former President Bill Clinton, the essence of a woman is more than her career.  Lisa reflects on what she thinks essential.

A good man [partner] that loves, that truly loves you… can empower you . . . and you can become more than you could on your own . . . and visa versa . . . love is the best when its pure and simple . . . love for the sake of love . . . not for anything else . . . is the sweetest of all.

For me, love is not the ultimate, like is.  In my own life, I learned that to like someone day in and day out is truly special.  We all wish to love and be loved.  Perhaps, that is why many enter into marriage.  Women that love a spouse and are not fond of the person may not wish to be titled Missus.  These individuals may have no desire to be recognized as interdependent.  [I laugh.  For wedded or not we are all jointly supported by others.  However, I will not quibble with those that see themselves as separate.]

I wonder; if each of us married with more than love as our mission, might we do better, feel better, and be better, no matter what our title.  I know not.  Possibly, will you marry me is a question asked and never fully answered.

To marry, or to stay single.  That is the question . . .

Democratic Candidates Discuss Gay Rights Tonight. Washington Post.  Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A04

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse, By Sam Roberts.  New York Times.  January 16, 2007

pdf 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse, By Sam Roberts.  New York Times.  January 16, 2007

Single Women Take the Lead in America. Talk of the Nation.  National Public Broadcasting.  January 18, 2007

Watch out, men! More women opt to live alone, Majority of U.S. women live without a spouse, Census says.  By Dawn Fratangelo. MSNBC News. January 16, 2007

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially.  By Richard Niolon, Ph.D.  Parent and Couples.  March 2002

Health, Marriage, and Longer Life for Men.  Rand Corporation. 1998

Former Presidents  Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Speak at Coretta Scott King’s Funeral, CQ Transcripts Wire.  Washington Post.  ?Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 5:06 PM

pdf Former Presidents  Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Speak at Coretta Scott King’s Funeral, CQ Transcripts Wire.  Washington Post. ? Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 5:06 PM

Coretta Scott King Biography, Pioneer of Civil Rights

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Today, I was reminded of how deeply divided this nation is.  I read School Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some.  I discovered in an attempt to offer equal opportunities, indeed, schools discovered discrimination remained a dominant force.  School Boards, Administrators, and the community-at-large concluded educational institutions would be more diverse if learners were assigned to schools based on family incomes.  A plan was introduced and implemented.  The outcome was mixed; however, the pupil populations were less so.  Some races, colors, and creeds were abundant within a given institution; others were not well represented.
This findings were contrary to the expected and desired intent of educators.  School Districts were determined to establish a sense of unity in their local schools.  They did not wish to register or reject students on the basis of race.  Family earnings were used to ascertain eligibility.  Enrollment numbers were controlled; however the outcome was not as predicted.  In a recent New York Times article Journalists Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder reported.

San Francisco – When San Francisco started trying to promote socioeconomic diversity in its public schools, officials hoped racial diversity would result as well.

It has not worked out that way.

Abraham Lincoln High School, for example, with its stellar reputation and Advanced Placement courses, has drawn a mix of rich and poor students.  More than 50 percent of those students are of Chinese descent.

“If you look at diversity based on race, the school hasn’t been as integrated,” Lincoln’s principal, Ronald J. K. Pang, said.  “If you don’t look at race, the school has become much more diverse.”

San Francisco began considering factors like family income, instead of race, in school assignments when it modified a court-ordered desegregation plan in response to a lawsuit.  But school officials have found that the 55,000-student city school district, with Chinese the dominant ethnic group followed by Hispanics, blacks and whites, is resegregrating.

The number of schools where students of a single racial or ethnic group make up 60 percent or more of the population in at least one grade is increasing sharply.  In 2005-06, about 50 schools were segregated using that standard as measured by a court-appointed monitor.  That was up from 30 schools in the 2001-02 school year, the year before the change, according to court filings.

It is not a mystery why this might occur.  Perhaps, as often happens, one child spoke to a classmate of his, stating an interest in a particular school or program.  One mother chatted with her neighbor over the backyard fence.  They discussed her son’s education.  A father, in the local barbershop, mentioned his daughter would enroll in this facility or that.  Another resident of that small community thought the idea a good one.  They too entered their child in that facility.  

People tend to discuss their decisions with those they know.  Word travels; however not as far and wide as it might.  We are acquainted with those that live near us.  Likely, the person next door or down the street has an income similar to our own.  Common interests are usual among people residing in the same community.  Often, people of one race, religion, or creed associate with those of similar backgrounds.  

Humans are rarely distant from those they relate to.  In the workplace, the peons have no choice but to converse with those at their level.  Corporate Executive Officers rarely confer with their subordinates.  Middle managements lauds over the people that work for them.  However, they do not frequently lean over and say, “Would you like to join us in a meeting, come to dinner, or call me, just to talk.”  Our children watch us; they observe and absorb the characteristics that they experience.  Our offspring learn from us.

Young persons typically admire their parents, or at least, those that care for them are an important influence.  We teach the children.  They learn their lessons well.  If we loathe our brethren, we can expect that our offspring will too.

Hate is a learned response; so too is the gravitational pull to certain “types” of people.

As we assess the recent report or other news of the day, we might wonder why segregation is so prevalent.  The answer abounds.  We heard it again only weeks ago.  The logic of Supreme Court Justices loomed large.  After assessing the evidence as it relates to Parents Involved In Community Schools versus Seattle School District Number 1 these esteemed Jurists announced their decision.

“Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.”

He added: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Again, we must acknowledge the attempts in San Francisco.  That School district thought they did as the Chief Justice directed.  Bay Area locals were resolute in their desire not to segregate on the basis of color.  Yet, they realized their efforts led students into greater isolation.  When School Boards concluded differences in incomes would lead to diversity, they negated an inherent fact.  As cited earlier in this essay, but bears repeating.  Frequently we forget, left to their own devices people prefer to be with their kind.

I believe this reality is not innate; nor is it healthy.  It is a habit.  Imaginary “boundaries” were developed long ago before any of us was born.  The need to build walls and partitions has been passed down through the centuries.  Generation after generation does as their parents did.

In prehistoric times, safety and a need for survival might have been a reason for concern.  People were nomads; they did not know, nor did they have the time to become acquainted with their neighbors.  Much has changed.  Civilization led to the growth of communities.  Now, we are connected, in cyberspace, and in cities.  Even those in the countryside are not far from other people.

I think in order to make change we must be more conscious of our choices and what we accept as common wisdom.  Among the most proverbial conventions is there will always be poor persons.  

I believe as long as there are underprivileged neighborhoods, there will be disadvantaged schools.  

Educational institutions in our slums serve students already facing difficulties in their daily life.  The educators willing to teach in these facilities will likely be of lesser quality.  There may be a few committed to a cause; however, this is out of the ordinary.  Books will be borrowed, or cast-off when the elite schools think them obsolete.  Indeed, the pupils in these locals will be fortunate to have text to read.  The Center on Education Policy discusses this dynamic.

Black and Hispanic students tend to take less-rigorous courses.  Though there are more black and Hispanic students taking academically rigorous courses now than in the past, whites and Asians still tend to be overrepresented in such courses.  In part, this situation results from the lack of advanced courses at high-minority schools.  In particular, researchers have found that schools in high-minority or high-poverty areas often offer a less-rigorous curriculum to begin with.  They thereby fail to challenge students, since they cover less material or give less homework.  This is a problem because research has found that students enrolled in challenging courses–in topics such as algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, and advanced English–usually have higher test scores than their peers.

There is a lack of experienced teachers.  [Nancy Kober, author of the Center on Education Policy’s report] points out that black students are more likely to be taught by less-experienced teachers than white students.  Researchers have cited this factor as one of the most critical variables for explaining the achievement gap: there is a correlation between higher teacher certification scores and higher student achievement scores.  Teachers in districts where there are high percentages of black or Hispanic students tend to have lower scores on their certification tests.

Teachers set their expectations low.  Studies have suggested that teachers sometimes have lower academic expectations for black and Hispanic children than they do for whites or Asians.  Kober warns that by setting expectations low, teachers run the risk of perpetuating the achievement gap since they do not encourage black and Hispanic students to follow a rigorous curriculum.

Resource disparities handicap schools.  Low-minority schools tend to be much better funded and have all-around stronger resources than do high-minority schools. The same relationship holds true for schools in low-poverty versus high-poverty areas.  There is persuasive evidence that this factor contributes to the achievement gap.  For example, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show the achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty schools increased throughout the 1990s.

Low-income and minority students tend to be concentrated in certain schools.  Kober notes that if a school has high levels of poverty, that can depress achievement for all the children in that school, even if they are from higher income families.  This fact hits Black and Hispanic children the hardest, since they are more likely to attend higher poverty schools than are whites or Asians.

Student performance anxiety hampers minority students.  Some research has suggested that black students can become anxious about corresponding to negative racial stereotypes in their academic work.  The result, researchers say, is a kind of vicious circle: Black students can be so worried about seeming stereotypically ungifted academically that their anxiety actually makes them perform less well than they could.

While on paper, Americans declare all persons are created equal, students know in practice this is not so.  Our pupils experience separate is not equal.  Even when “shipped” to schools far from home, they remain detached.  Their personalities are split.  They are the poor mingling amongst the rich.  An education helps; nonetheless, it does not eradicate the deeper divide.

Discrimination is visible and it is our veracity.  Those that we judge harshly are characteristically the poorest among us.  Frequently and subtly, we deny these individuals their rights, and provide little so that they might achieve their dreams.  They huddle in hovels and call these home.

Academics argue there is no need for a poor population.  Nonetheless, their perception of why one exists is as skewed as efforts to eliminate poverty are.  What is pervasive is too easily accepted, even expected.  Expert, scholarly opinions, I believe, do not consider the whole or a truth.  It seems what is too real for many is beyond the intellectuals’ ability to grasp.  I offer one authors reading of the problem, and an answer I find troublesome,

A theorist, a scholar, and a Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Dinesh D’Souza, writes in an article titled, Why Are There Poor People?

Mister D’Souza acknowledges and accepts the impoverished are victims of a collective configuration that does not reward them.  He states . . .

The left-wing view is that poor people are the victims of unjust social structures.  Historically this view is sound.  Slavery, colonialism–these were oppressive institutions that prevented people from exercising their freedom and rising in society.

The left-wing argument is also an accurate description of the situation in much of the Third World today.  If you take a train through the Indian countryside, you will see farmers beating their pickaxes into the ground, frail women wobbling under heavy loads, children carrying stones.  These people are working incredibly hard, yet they are getting nowhere.  The reason is that institutional structures are set up in such a way that creativity and effort don’t bring due reward.  No wonder the people in these countries are fatalistic.

However, he continues, “institutional structures” that  keep the poor down do not exist in America.  Dinesh D’Souza states “capitalism and technology” provide opportunities for all.

[I]n the West capitalism and technology have worked together to lift the vast majority of the population out of deprivation and up to a level of affluence that, in the words of novelist Tom Wolfe, would “make the Sun King blink.”

So what about the underclass, the inner-city poor that we hear so much about? I agree: it is terrible to grow up in many parts of the Bronx, New York, or Anacostia, Washington DC, or South Central Los Angeles. But that’s not because of material poverty.  Rather, it’s because of the shocking moral behavior of the residents.  High crime rates, the crack trade, and the absence of stable families all work together to destroy the cultural ecosystem and make normal productive life so difficult in these communities.

This is where the right-wing argument gathers force.  Conservatives contend that the bourgeois virtues of family stability, the work ethic, the respect for education and law are essential for individuals and groups to advance, and where those are jlacking, chaos is the predictable result.  The solution is to recognize that prosperity does not come naturally.

Such is the attitude, the belief, and the perception of many in our society.  Numerous persons say, the poor do not avail themselves of the opportunities within the market place.  Capitalism offers chances for all.  However, I must inquire, do people of color, those of lesser means and little education, truly have the same prospects the prosperous do.

I observe that not all in the Western world have benefited from free enterprise; nor do each of us have access to technology.  Entrepreneurship is but a dream for those that have little education and few funds.  People that experience discrimination because of their color or perceived background lack hope.  

In America, for hundreds of thousands skills are lacking.  Millions of people living in this country are illiterate or not well versed in disciplines that might help them climb from the clutches of poverty.  “Equipment” is not evenly distributed.  In impoverished areas, children are fortunate to have textbooks and teachers that care.  Richer areas [are] more successful in attracting qualified teachers.

I must ask, if I am born to a welfare mother, a woman that is poor, or not white, will I have an equal chance to succeed.  We know that schools and society discriminate against those whose flesh is darker and those of lesser means.

If my father had to work as a child to support his family, and therefore, never had the time let alone energy to complete school, am I likely to do well.  If my guardian must work long hours, doing manual labor in order to provide me with food and shelter will she or he be available to assist me with my homework.  Will they be in the room with me when I need reassurance or feel discouraged.  If they are will, they be able to honestly tell me “Everything will be all right, it always is.”

Can a parent that has little knowledge of schoolwork or experience learning through scientific method teach me the habits that might benefit me, or society?  A child born into poverty does not hope or dream of succeeding as other children do.

Discrimination leaves a legacy. The harmful effects of segregated schooling and similar forms of discrimination will continue to persist for several decades, studies show.  These effects can persist as a family link: children whose grandparents’ educational achievement was limited or restricted may not enjoy the benefits of a family that values or encourages rigorous academics. Such values may simply not be a part of the family’s culture, partly because past discrimination inhibited the grandparents’ achievement.  Moreover, other forms of discrimination, such as in housing or employment, can also negatively impact a child’s educational opportunities.

Home and community learning opportunities are critical. In general, minority children are less likely than white children to have parents with high levels of educational attainment. This factor, together with others such as lower family income and parents’ work schedules, may limit the extent to which parents can foster positive opportunities for learning at home, Author of the Center on Education Policy’s report, It Takes More Than Testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, [Nancy] Kober claims. Hence, opportunities such as having access to books and computers–or even being read to before bedtime–may be more limited for minority children. Also, it is an established fact that high-minority and high-poverty communities tend to enjoy less access to such resources as libraries and museums that can benefit children. Finally, if the family speaks a language other than English at home, that can also affect a child’s learning opportunities.

Good parenting practices need to be encouraged. Parental approaches to learning at home differ, and cultural variations undoubtedly play a role in children’s learning and achievement. However, the most effective practices should be encouraged, although more research is necessary to determine which do provide the greatest benefits.

Contrary to the beliefs Dinesh D’Souza professes, only in rare cases does a blood relation or guardian teach criminal behavior.  Most mothers and fathers have the best of intentions.  Parents do not work to raise felons.  No matter what their background, color, or creed people have ethics and values, customs, and traditions.  Humans have emotions; they feel for their children.  Moms and Dads want their children to achieve the accolades they did not.

Frustrations breed the social structure that inhibits achievement.  All the computers, cameras, telephones, and televisions in the world cannot provide the connection a parent might.  Technology cannot substitute for the tender, caring, touch of a Mom or Dad.

However, in a country where massive amounts of money are a must in order to maintain a menial subsistence, parents may not be as profound an influence as they might be.  They may not be the best role models.  

Nonetheless, a child can turn to another adult for guidance and quality instruction.  Perchance a teacher in a good school will stimulate the mind and rekindle a heart starving for attention.  Parents, not your own might help to involve an expectant pupil.  That was the hope in the districts intent on initiating socioeconomic diversity.

The purpose of such programs is twofold. Since income levels often correlate with race, they can be an alternate and legal way to produce racial integration. They also promote achievement gains by putting poorer students in schools that are more likely to have experienced teachers and students with high aspirations, as well as a parent body that can afford to be more involved.

“There is a large body of evidence going back several years,” Mr. Kahlenberg said, “that probably the most important thing you can do to raise the achievement of low-income students is to provide them with middle-class schools.”

Economic integration initiatives differ from each other, and from many traditional integration efforts that relied on mandatory transfer of students among schools. Some of the new initiatives involve busing but some do not; some rely on student choice, while some also use a lottery. And so it is difficult to measure how far students travel or how many students switch schools.

The most ambitious effort and the example most often cited as a success is in the city of Raleigh, N.C., and its suburbs.

For seven years, the district has sought to cap the proportion of low-income students in each of the county’s 143 schools at 40 percent.

To achieve a balance of low- and middle-income children, the district encourages and sometimes requires students to attend schools far from home. Suburban students are attracted to magnet schools in the city; children from the inner city are sometimes bused to middle-class schools at the outer edges of Raleigh and in the suburbs.

The achievement gains have been sharp, and school officials said economic integration was largely responsible. Only 40 percent of black students in grades three through eight in Wake County, where Raleigh is located, scored at grade level on state reading tests in 1995. By the spring of 2006, 82 percent did.

“The plan works well,” said John H. Gilbert, a professor emeritus at North Carolina State University in Raleigh who served for 16 years on the county school board and voted for the plan. “It’s based on sound assumptions about the environment in which children learn.”

While this is impressive, and validates that those of any background can and will improve given quality education, the truer problem, for me, is not eradicated.  Will these Black students find a way to enter college.  Might they cultivate a career that will ensure financial success.  If they are able to accomplish much, when they walk down the street will they be accepted as a wealthy white person would be.  Might a person of color have the same prospects their Caucasian brethren do.  Probably not.

If we continue, as we have, competing in a free market society will not be possible when the color of your skin is not white.  The wad of bills in your pocket may help; however, perceptions too often take precedence.  

Before an American child enters the workplace, where supposedly, opportunity abounds.  They must obtain an education.  We place a huge burden on our children if we remain separate as a society.  We can bus our offspring, and perhaps we may have to until parents learn to adjust.  However, asking our young to sit idly for hours while they travel to a world not their own gives rise to other issues.  The most obvious is the plight of the poor.

As long as we, in the United States continue to have poor neighborhoods, we will have institutions that help sustain the cycle of poverty.  If we send all the underprivileged to the better neighborhoods, who will attend the remaining pitiable properties intended to educate our youth?  Why would we need facilities that favor no one.  Indeed, why do we need communities that propagate a truth that we do not endorse, poverty.

Let us replace the myth that only hinders civilization as a whole.  Discard what defines our youth and even their elders as deprived .  They, we, are not Black or white, rich or poor, alien or native, advanced or behind.  We are individuals; we must furnish all with what they need to thrive.  

As Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard cautions, “Once you label me, you negate me.”

If as a culture we expect Black and Hispanic children to live in low-income families, they will.  If their parents are not educated well, or accepted into society, the children will be less likely to live in neighborhoods that nurture an innate desire to learn.  We must be willing to integrate our neighborhoods, and truly provide the means for all our citizens to live as equals.

We need to ask ourselves, do we truly wish to endorse a system where everyone is equal.  If so, let us begin to embrace the challenge and create the structure our forefathers’ spoke of.   If we do not we will continue to look for solutions that shift the responsibility to our children.  

I believe we can live and succeed as a Union.  We need only invest authentically in our offspring, all of them, and more importantly in ourselves.

If we decide not to fear our fellow man or see him or her as an alien, a stranger, the enemy, or someone we would not wish to be part of our family, then divisions will exist no more.

Diversity need not be our undoing.  Please let us look at the United States Constitution and allow the principles that guide us to be our truth.  Might we make this country great and preserve our integrity.  We are one and all.

When you grow up in a totally segregated society,
where everybody around you believes that segregation is proper,
you have a hard time.
You can’t believe how much it’s a part of your thinking.”
Shelby Foote [Historian, Novelist]

Poor Schools, Poor Neighborhoods, A Sad State of Affairs . . .

School Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some, By Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder.  The New York Times. July 15, 2007

pdf School Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some, By Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder.  The New York Times. July 15, 2007

Parents Involved In Community Schools versus Seattle School District Number 1  Supreme Court Of the United States.

Divided Court Limits Use of Race by School Districts, By Robert Barnes.  Washington Post.? Friday, June 29, 2007; Page A01

pdf Divided Court Limits Use of Race by School Districts, By Robert Barnes. Washington Post. ?Friday, June 29, 2007; Page A01

Parents involved in Community Schools versus Seattle School District Number 1. Supreme Court of the United States. June 28, 2007

It Takes More Than Testing: Closing the Achievement Gap. A Report of the Center on Education Policy. By Nancy Kober.  Center on Education Policy.  Educational Resources Information Center.

lliteracy: An Incurable Disease or Education Malpractice? The National Right to Read Foundation.

Richer areas more successful in attracting qualified teachers.  USA Today. April 24, 2006

George W Bush, 4th of July. Independence Day

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

In recent years, on each official holiday America seems to commemorate conflict.  In this nation holidays are not Holy Days, although they are treated as such.  Citizens ask G-d to bless our battles.  Today, as I read the text of the President’s speech and listened to sermons delivered by dignitaries, I wondered.  I repeatedly inquired; “Are we acknowledging Independence Day or Memorial Day.”  Our President spoke in memorial.  He asked that we pay tribute to the fallen soldiers.  Mister Bush went on to honor the multiplicity of wars.  We ,as a people, seem to remember the events that take the lives and limbs of many worldwide and not the reason we observe a date.  
Americans ritualize ceremonies that revere conflict.  As a country, we praise doctrines that cause death and destruction at every turn.  

Citizens residing in the USA honor the combat and the combatants.  Civilians and causes are forgotten.  On this July 4, 2007, I would like to take a moment to consider today is not a day intended to celebrate conflict.  It is the anniversary of Independence.

As we deny those in Iraq and Afghanistan their sovereignty, we venerate our own.  The irony, for me, is inexplicable, inescapable, and enigmatic.

In the name of our forebears, our Commander-In-Chief declares we must never forget.

Our commitment to America’s founding truths remains steadfast. We believe that freedom is a blessing from the Almighty and the birthright of every man and woman.  As our Nation faces new challenges, we are answering history’s call with confidence that our legacy of freedom will always prevail.  On Independence Day, we express our gratitude to the generations of courageous Americans who have defended us and those who continue to serve in our country’s hour of need, and we celebrate the liberty that makes America a light to the nations.

The light grows dim as the demise of many a nation increases.  The death toll alone is daunting.  The deliberate destruction is discouraging.  The reality is that we as a sovereign state refuse to grant those in other countries what we hold near and dear.

How can we excuse, the duplicity that now passes as policy.  Might we pardon our past.  After all, the United States brought Saddam Hussein to power, only to deny him his throne later.

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 – The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967.  The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would “probably” include “an eventual nuclear weapon capability,” harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people.  The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

America imposes its ideology on nations worldwide.  Americans reject the rights of people in other countries.  We contradict our convictions.  Disavow the independence and autonomy the citizens in nations abroad crave.  Just as the British before had done, we, decide how individuals elsewhere must live.  The United States declares its form of democracy the supreme.  America claims its supremacy.

America may, after overturning one regime for another [temporarily] allow the newly placed leaders to govern; however, only if they rule as United States leaders deem “right.”  If a President does not posture as those, in the “Independent,” western superpower thinks ideal, or within the framework of the ideologue in power in America, then they too will be removed.
Osama bin Laden spoke of this in a May 1998 interview.  Then ABC broadcaster John Miller inquired of bin Laden . . .

What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?

The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control.  These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.  And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there.

It is American and allied occupations that motivate the supposed militants.  They, as we were during the days of the American Revolution, are rebels with a cause.  Those labeled “insurgents” [as though this is a derogatory term] fight for their freedom just as the colonist in the New World 1776 once did.

Muslims in every sector of the world want the freedom to believe as they do.  Those of other faiths wish to practice the religion of their choice.  People in every nation do not think they should house the soldiers that kill their families en masse.

Just as the American colonists long ago rejected Governors the English empire put in power, Iraqis feel no allegiance to the “elected” officials in their homeland.  Citizens everywhere crave the freedom to choose their own candidates.  They yearn to write their own Constitution without influence or inducement from outside forces.

The Iraqis, Afghanis, Iranians, North Koreans, and people throughout the planet want what Americans claim to project, the right to rule as they, the people see fit.  If countrymen and women in any continent choose to overthrow their leaders, they will.  Americans must not require or enforce a schedule or a strategy.

We can, have, and perhaps, will forever try to dictate that others follow us, the United States of America in practicing what we believe are democratic principles.  However, we will never triumph.  Demands do not give rise to democracy.  Domination is tyranny, no matter what the allegations.

If we are to honor our forefathers on this Independence Day, let us respect the philosophy every man and woman embraces.  Self-determination, liberty, and justice [just-us] are unalienable rights.  These privileges exist for us all.  Every man, woman and child must preserve these principles.  People throughout the planet can ensure that everyone, everywhere be granted their freedom.  Let it begin with me.

Commemorate Independence . . .

Independence Day, 2007.  Office of the Press Secretary. June 29, 2007

President Bush Celebrates Independence Day With West Virginia Air National Guard. Office of the Press Secretary. June 29, 2007

US Documents Show embrace of Saddam Hussein in Early 1980s.  National Security Archive.

Interview Osama bin Laden. Public Broadcasting. May 1998