By now you know the story: In 2002 a graduate student at Penn State witnessed an assistant coach sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He tried to report it to university authorities and was given the run-around. Now, nine years later, that assistant coach is finally facing charges of molesting several boys over a 15 year period. Also charged are a couple of the university officials who led the cover-up.
Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.
That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.
But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.
Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.
Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.
The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.
One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."
Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Ending Corporate Personhood
Way back in 2002, Congress passed the bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as McCain–Feingold in reference to its primary sponsors. One of the provisions of McCain–Feingold prohibited corporations (for-profit, nonprofit, unions, etc.) from broadcasting “electioneering communications” either for or against a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.
Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:
To learn more about this movement, and add your name to the petition, see movetoamend.org
Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.
Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.In the nearly two years since then, many have talked about the need to over-turn this decision. Part of that is the movement to amend the Constitution to be clear that corporations are not people, and are not entitled to the same rights and protections as persons, and that money is not speech!
To learn more about this movement, and add your name to the petition, see movetoamend.org
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Occupying This Blog
I have been having many conversations with friends the last few weeks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and have been down to take part in Occupy Santa Cruz for a few hours at a time on a couple of occasions, so it seems fitting I should finally post something here as well.
Part of what I have found surprising is that some of the friends who I would have expected to be the most supportive of this movement have been the most skeptical of it, while I see support coming from a few unlikely quarters.
Some of my associates who have been with me through a few decades of protests, from the anti-nuclear movement to trying to prevent and/or end a few wars, are impatient with the "start-up phase" and distrustful of some of the younger leaders of the Occupations. But what gives me hope is the support from people who've never been a part of any mass movement, but who are now ready to take a stand.
I find myself frustrated with those who have bought the mainstream media line that "there's no message." Spend any amount of time at your local Occupation and it's quite clear that this is about economic justice. Within that theme, there are specifics around a fair tax code, re-regulation of the banks and bringing the crooks behind the foreclosure crisis to justice, and the end of corporate personhood.
But, even if it weren't that clear, what does anybody expect from a movement that's barely a month old? On top of that, a movement that's based on consensus and democracy, without clear pre-existing leadership? I'm actually pretty amazed at the success of the OWS movement so far, with over 1,000 local occupations in support of the original in NYC.
I feel the greatest success is simply that people are talking about the protests and economic justice. People have discovered that they are not alone; there are millions of us who are angry but are not represented by the tea partiers. And, they are willing to take to the streets to return democracy to the people.
The media would prefer that there be one spokesperson with whom they are already familiar and whose staff is already in their speed-dial. They don't like the messiness of consensus building among large groups. It takes time, and can be endlessly frustrating. But nobody promised that revolution would be easy or pretty.
Remember, it took the Continental Congress two years to get around to passing that Declaration of Independence. I'm willing to give the Occupy movement a few more months before being disappointed that they failed to change the world.
A couple of obligatory links:
* Who are "the 99%" who are protesting?
* Where can I find Occupy (My Town)?
Part of what I have found surprising is that some of the friends who I would have expected to be the most supportive of this movement have been the most skeptical of it, while I see support coming from a few unlikely quarters.
Some of my associates who have been with me through a few decades of protests, from the anti-nuclear movement to trying to prevent and/or end a few wars, are impatient with the "start-up phase" and distrustful of some of the younger leaders of the Occupations. But what gives me hope is the support from people who've never been a part of any mass movement, but who are now ready to take a stand.
I find myself frustrated with those who have bought the mainstream media line that "there's no message." Spend any amount of time at your local Occupation and it's quite clear that this is about economic justice. Within that theme, there are specifics around a fair tax code, re-regulation of the banks and bringing the crooks behind the foreclosure crisis to justice, and the end of corporate personhood.
But, even if it weren't that clear, what does anybody expect from a movement that's barely a month old? On top of that, a movement that's based on consensus and democracy, without clear pre-existing leadership? I'm actually pretty amazed at the success of the OWS movement so far, with over 1,000 local occupations in support of the original in NYC.
I feel the greatest success is simply that people are talking about the protests and economic justice. People have discovered that they are not alone; there are millions of us who are angry but are not represented by the tea partiers. And, they are willing to take to the streets to return democracy to the people.
The media would prefer that there be one spokesperson with whom they are already familiar and whose staff is already in their speed-dial. They don't like the messiness of consensus building among large groups. It takes time, and can be endlessly frustrating. But nobody promised that revolution would be easy or pretty.
Remember, it took the Continental Congress two years to get around to passing that Declaration of Independence. I'm willing to give the Occupy movement a few more months before being disappointed that they failed to change the world.
A couple of obligatory links:
* Who are "the 99%" who are protesting?
* Where can I find Occupy (My Town)?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
More Popular Lies
You know, the classics: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery." And today's favorite, "Tax cuts create jobs."
The right's answer to solving the nation's economic woes has for the last thirty years been the dictum that cutting taxes creates jobs which, in turn, increases revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. Maybe sometime when I have all day to get way into economics I'll do an extended blog post about the Laffer Curve, and it's misapplication by opportunists, but today let's keep it pretty basic.
Check the trajectory of our debt and job growth: The above theory has been empirically proven wrong again and again over the same thirty year period.
A few of the facts (not ideological theories, but observable, measurable events):
Now, let's say I run a widget company. No amount of tax cuts will ever convince me to hire a new widget salesperson. The only thing that would convince me to hire a new salesperson is demand for more widgets.
The best thing for increasing demand is a growing economy that inspires consumer confidence. And, as we've seen, the economic answers of modern conservatives have repeatedly failed to do that.
We currently have a President who is at least nominally "progressive" in many areas, but held hostage to a conservative Congress, and all too willing to go along with them far too often.
What he seems prepared to go along with now is cutting Social Security benefits to appease the right. Do you believe that cutting the spending power of a large group of Americans is going to increase or decrease consumer demand? Cutting Social Security to "balance" a cut in taxes will be a double hit to the economy.
The Republican lies about economic growth have been repeated so many times that it seems the majority of the public believes them, despite the facts. Well, it's time for us to wake up and say enough is enough. It's time for the President and the remaining Democrats to stand up and tell the public the hard truth: we can't afford another tax cut today.
No, you don't create jobs by cutting taxes or benefits, and - listen carefully - you can't save the economy by defaulting on the national debt.
Read more here - and here.
The right's answer to solving the nation's economic woes has for the last thirty years been the dictum that cutting taxes creates jobs which, in turn, increases revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. Maybe sometime when I have all day to get way into economics I'll do an extended blog post about the Laffer Curve, and it's misapplication by opportunists, but today let's keep it pretty basic.
Check the trajectory of our debt and job growth: The above theory has been empirically proven wrong again and again over the same thirty year period.
A few of the facts (not ideological theories, but observable, measurable events):
- The Federal tax burden is at its lowest point in 60 years.
- The debt exploded the most under Presidents Reagan and Bush (Jr.), the Presidents most closely associated with the above economic theory.
- Job growth under George W. Bush, perhaps the strongest believer in "tax cuts create jobs" - even more so than Reagan - was the worst in 75 years, since Herbert Hoover and the start of the Great Depression.
| President | Job Growth |
| Carter | 3.1 |
| Reagan | 2.1 |
| Bush (I) | 0.6 |
| Clinton | 2.4 |
| Bush (II) | 0.2 |
Now, let's say I run a widget company. No amount of tax cuts will ever convince me to hire a new widget salesperson. The only thing that would convince me to hire a new salesperson is demand for more widgets.
The best thing for increasing demand is a growing economy that inspires consumer confidence. And, as we've seen, the economic answers of modern conservatives have repeatedly failed to do that.
We currently have a President who is at least nominally "progressive" in many areas, but held hostage to a conservative Congress, and all too willing to go along with them far too often.
What he seems prepared to go along with now is cutting Social Security benefits to appease the right. Do you believe that cutting the spending power of a large group of Americans is going to increase or decrease consumer demand? Cutting Social Security to "balance" a cut in taxes will be a double hit to the economy.
The Republican lies about economic growth have been repeated so many times that it seems the majority of the public believes them, despite the facts. Well, it's time for us to wake up and say enough is enough. It's time for the President and the remaining Democrats to stand up and tell the public the hard truth: we can't afford another tax cut today.
No, you don't create jobs by cutting taxes or benefits, and - listen carefully - you can't save the economy by defaulting on the national debt.
Read more here - and here.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
In Memory of Jim Harris
Jim Harris was a computer consultant, a software developer & programmer, a teacher, a union organizer, president of a trade school, a gifted musician, and a social activist. It is in that last role that I became aware of Jim, soon after he and Pat Murphy co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997.
Progressive Secretary was not the first organization to see the potential for using email and the net and what we now call "social media" to encourage activism, and bring people together for progressive causes (MoveOn.org had them beat by at least a year), but they were certainly early in the line.
And, for all the changes and advances in technology in the last fourteen years, Progressive Secretary has remained true to their original, simple concept:
Today, the flip side is that such efforts have become so commonplace that they are derided as "slacktivism" - faux activism designed to appeal to the lazy. But Jim Harris was no slacktivist. He worked for social justice all his life, was part of the Civil Rights movement, going to Mississippi with SNCC, and later working with Cesar Chavez and the UFW. When he co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997, he was recovering from leukemia, and considered it part of his healing.
Jim finally passed last Friday, June 3, of glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. There will be a Quaker memorial service today at the Sacramento Friends Meeting House. He was seventy-years old. Progressive Secretary lives on.
Progressive Secretary was not the first organization to see the potential for using email and the net and what we now call "social media" to encourage activism, and bring people together for progressive causes (MoveOn.org had them beat by at least a year), but they were certainly early in the line.
And, for all the changes and advances in technology in the last fourteen years, Progressive Secretary has remained true to their original, simple concept:
Progressive Secretary sends out progressive email letters to Congress, the President, and other officials on peace, the environment, civil rights and other issues.Whether or not you consider yourself a "progressive" or not, and whether or not you agree with Jim's politics is not my point here today. It's the simple elegance of the concept of using email to organize cooperative grassroots campaigns. So obvious today; not so much in 1997.
The letters are suggested by participants in the cooperative and are sent to you as a proposal. If you tell us to "send", then the letters are sent ... over your signature and return address.
Today, the flip side is that such efforts have become so commonplace that they are derided as "slacktivism" - faux activism designed to appeal to the lazy. But Jim Harris was no slacktivist. He worked for social justice all his life, was part of the Civil Rights movement, going to Mississippi with SNCC, and later working with Cesar Chavez and the UFW. When he co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997, he was recovering from leukemia, and considered it part of his healing.
Jim finally passed last Friday, June 3, of glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. There will be a Quaker memorial service today at the Sacramento Friends Meeting House. He was seventy-years old. Progressive Secretary lives on.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
50 to 50
It's early June, and today we're having record rains... So I stayed inside all afternoon and wrote and recorded a new song... Didn't intend for it to be so sappy. Sorry about that.
50 to 50 by kenrg
50 to 50
© 2011 K.R. Goldstein
today it's hard to see through the rain
but I feel it coming around again
reviewing it all from way back when
and long-lost friends
the cast of characters come and go
some too fast and some to slow
only the rare have a chance to rust
turn to American dust
to those I've loved and those who cared
hold up high those times we dared
when all was lost and all was found
we held our ground
this next big day could turn the tide
of this long confusing ride
set the course for the final stretch
of this comic sketch
can't let all these aches and pains
tie me down with battleship chains
and if the wind blows it all away
refuse to fade away
(not fade away, not fade away, not fade away)
50 to 50 by kenrg
50 to 50
© 2011 K.R. Goldstein
today it's hard to see through the rain
but I feel it coming around again
reviewing it all from way back when
and long-lost friends
the cast of characters come and go
some too fast and some to slow
only the rare have a chance to rust
turn to American dust
to those I've loved and those who cared
hold up high those times we dared
when all was lost and all was found
we held our ground
this next big day could turn the tide
of this long confusing ride
set the course for the final stretch
of this comic sketch
can't let all these aches and pains
tie me down with battleship chains
and if the wind blows it all away
refuse to fade away
(not fade away, not fade away, not fade away)
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Bye Bye Borders
By now you've probably heard that Borders Books is entering bankruptcy and will be closing many of its stores. The two Borders outlets nearest me are both on the list to be axed. This blog post is not so much about Borders itself, but a comparison of the two towns that are losing the massive retailer.
On one side we have the beach-side college town of Santa Cruz, and on the other the Silicon Valley suburb of Los Gatos.
Santa Cruz is known for being on the funky side. The shops downtown cater to a younger, hipper audience. Walking down Pacific Avenue on any given day, you're likely to encounter several street musicians and even more homeless (or near-homeless) asking for handouts.
Los Gatos is known for being decidedly more upper-crust. The shops are high-end and expensive, and the restaurants compete with San Francisco for cutting-edge gourmet dining experiences. Only one homeless person at a time is allowed on North Santa Cruz Avenue (yes, Los Gatos' main drag is called "Santa Cruz").
Santa Cruz culture emphasizes the small, the local, the sustainable, the unique. Los Gatos also stresses unique and special, but is more open to corporate influence and its perceived worldliness. In Santa Cruz many of the shop windows have signs for the 3/50 Project - a nationwide campaign to get people to shop locally. I'm not sure I've ever seen 3/50 references in Los Gatos.
Santa Cruz has always been home to multiple bookstores, each with their own specialties and market niches. When Borders announced they were moving in, there were protests saying the chain store was neither needed nor welcome. Since Borders opened there's been some changes in the local book scene, but they never managed to supplant the major local players.
Borders was welcomed with open arms in Los Gatos, where, at the time, there were only two other bookstores: One locally-owned specialty mystery bookstore and one Crown Books discount book chain outlet. Shortly after Borders came, each of these closed. The Crown is now the Pier One Imports and the mystery book shop is now quite an excellent little restaurant.
The loss of Borders in Los Gatos means the closest thing to a bookstore will be going to the Apple Store and purchasing an iPad to read your iBooks. For as much emphasis as Los Gatos places on being a place of "culture" and refinement, the lack of a bookstore should be a major embarrassment. For a community that bases its overblown property values in a large part on the quality of its schools, the inability of the town's adults to support even one bookstore demonstrates where their real values are.
For Santa Cruz, the loss of Borders won't alter the town's voracious appetite for literature and learning in the least. The only concern for Santa Cruz will be such a large vacant space in a prominent location.
Is your community ready for the loss of Borders? What if the other large box retailers were to pull out of your town? Do you have any more local retailers left?
Support your local bookseller and read about the 3/50 Project before it's too late.
On one side we have the beach-side college town of Santa Cruz, and on the other the Silicon Valley suburb of Los Gatos.
Santa Cruz is known for being on the funky side. The shops downtown cater to a younger, hipper audience. Walking down Pacific Avenue on any given day, you're likely to encounter several street musicians and even more homeless (or near-homeless) asking for handouts.
Los Gatos is known for being decidedly more upper-crust. The shops are high-end and expensive, and the restaurants compete with San Francisco for cutting-edge gourmet dining experiences. Only one homeless person at a time is allowed on North Santa Cruz Avenue (yes, Los Gatos' main drag is called "Santa Cruz").
Santa Cruz culture emphasizes the small, the local, the sustainable, the unique. Los Gatos also stresses unique and special, but is more open to corporate influence and its perceived worldliness. In Santa Cruz many of the shop windows have signs for the 3/50 Project - a nationwide campaign to get people to shop locally. I'm not sure I've ever seen 3/50 references in Los Gatos.
Santa Cruz has always been home to multiple bookstores, each with their own specialties and market niches. When Borders announced they were moving in, there were protests saying the chain store was neither needed nor welcome. Since Borders opened there's been some changes in the local book scene, but they never managed to supplant the major local players.
Borders was welcomed with open arms in Los Gatos, where, at the time, there were only two other bookstores: One locally-owned specialty mystery bookstore and one Crown Books discount book chain outlet. Shortly after Borders came, each of these closed. The Crown is now the Pier One Imports and the mystery book shop is now quite an excellent little restaurant.
The loss of Borders in Los Gatos means the closest thing to a bookstore will be going to the Apple Store and purchasing an iPad to read your iBooks. For as much emphasis as Los Gatos places on being a place of "culture" and refinement, the lack of a bookstore should be a major embarrassment. For a community that bases its overblown property values in a large part on the quality of its schools, the inability of the town's adults to support even one bookstore demonstrates where their real values are.
For Santa Cruz, the loss of Borders won't alter the town's voracious appetite for literature and learning in the least. The only concern for Santa Cruz will be such a large vacant space in a prominent location.
Is your community ready for the loss of Borders? What if the other large box retailers were to pull out of your town? Do you have any more local retailers left?
Support your local bookseller and read about the 3/50 Project before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
