All Posts, economy, poverty, public education

What is the future of our jobs?

1 Comment

Today I’d like to introduce you to SAM. His full name is Semi Automated Mason.  SAM can lay as many bricks as three human masons.   He has only one year of experience and will become more skilled and productive as he continues to learn. On the other hand, SAM could become unemployed when on-site 3-D printing of walls becomes feasible.  It’s being tested now.

SAM’s story is important because it exemplifies a worldwide trend.  We are still in the early days of an economic and social upheaval that will be bigger than the industrial revolution; and we’re not prepared for what’s coming.  An Oxford University study identified jobs most and least likely to be replaced by automation.  Looking at the list, it becomes apparent that some among us will benefit from less expensive products and services produced through automation while others lose their jobs.

It’s going to happen regardless of what presidential candidates promise about creating jobs or trade treaties.  Even in China and undeveloped nations, automation is faster and cheaper than human labor.  That is true in the production of both “things” and services.  Human operators for elevators and long distance phone calls were displaced a long time ago.  Soon automation  will replace us in jobs as diverse as loan officer, manicurist, and drivers – not just drivers of taxis but also of trucks and buses.

In economic terms, this revolution means that fewer people can produce more goods and services.  The total amount of wealth available will increase.  Some of us will benefit from that but those who are replaced probably won’t.  If you’re old enough to remember it, think of what happened when mechanized agriculture drove down the cost of eggs, milk, corn, cotton and other products.   They became cheaper while previously successful farm families were devastated by agribusiness competition.  Today we can see  entire communities and families that are no longer self-sufficient because their jobs are gone.

The much-talked-about decline of the middle class is not primarily caused (and won’t be fixed) by tax or trade policies.  Instead, it is caused in large part by technologies that are cheaper and more productive than human labor.  This inevitable change brings opportunities along with threats.

What then, shall we do to prepare ourselves?

  1. Know the facts.  It’s particularly important for elected officials, educators, economic developers, city planners and business leaders to correctly anticipate the future and plan for it.  News media can improve public knowledge by researching  and reporting on these subjects.
  2. Understand the education and skills that will be necessary for success in the future economy.  I cringe when I hear someone say that, “not everyone needs to go to college.”  The statement is true of course, but it masks a more important truth.  Successful people will need to be able to learn at the college level.  Change will come at a pace that requires continuous learning of new information and skills.  The ability to read and learn at the level expected of a college freshman will be necessary for success in skilled trades, health occupations, and just about any field we can imagine.  It is a great disservice to children and parents to lead them to believe that they can succeed with less.
  3. Prepare community and regional infrastructure for success. For example, gigabit internet service will be more important than highways and railroads.  An increasing number of businesses require high-speed and high volume internet service at all of their locations. That’s often true of small startup businesses and may be true for in-home education opportunities.   Communities that lack gigabit service may be left behind as badly as those that lacked electricity, roads or railroads a century ago.
  4. Re-design public education and libraries to support lifelong learning so that all of us can continuously acquire new knowledge and skills as we need them, regardless of our economic status or geographic location.  We can discover ways to use the internet to deliver our finest instruction and most complete information to every American.

Issues of this kind should be on the agendas of national, state and local governments.  Instead we are arguing about voter IDs and bathroom privileges.  I don’t know all the answers, but I’m sure of one thing.  The people who find the right answers will be the ones who are asking the right questions.

 

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, ethics, north carolina, race

Should we stand for our national anthem?

After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal  in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem.  Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.

Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”.  Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality.  Not much happened.  If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or  some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.

Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society.   We don’t.  Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.

It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns.  For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.

The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation  … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law.  In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities.  They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites.  Similar processes were used to determine early voting days,  eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.

North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public.  The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”

The law passed by party line vote.  Every Republican legislator supported it.  I don’t think they are all racists.  Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era.  They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting.  That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.

Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem.  Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election.  It’s time to have a record voter turnout.

 

All Posts, ethics, health, justice, science

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE YOUR GENES?

Today I’m introducing epigenetics, a subject that will soon be added to our list of scientific and ethical debates.  Few of us know the word or its meaning, but this emerging branch of science already affects our lives in many ways.

We know that genetic makeup inherited from our parents and nurture provided by families and society are powerful influences on our development.  Epigenetics has demonstrated that environmental factors continuously adjust how our genes affect us. Ethical and legal questions will arise as we learn to manipulate how genes are expressed. Before those discussions begin, we’ll need to understand the possibilities that may unfold.

Every cell in an organism contains the same genes but natural epigenetic stimuli tell cells in a fetus to differentiate into skin, eyes and so forth.  Many kinds of internal and external events can stimulate genes to activate or deactivate.  External factors including nutrition, stress, climate and chemicals have been demonstrated to cause epigenetic change.  In some cases this creates identifiable “tags” on genes.

We have long known that taking certain chemicals into our bodies can cause cancer, addiction, and other health problems but we didn’t understand how it happened.  Now it appears that epigenetic change can cause of some kinds of cancer, diabetes and other illnesses. There are also adaptive and useful epigenetic changes. Here are some examples.

In rat colonies with a safe environment and plentiful food, baby rats (called pups) that have attentive mothers who lick and groom them a lot tend to mature as calm, relaxed adults with high social standing and long life expectancy.  Pups with less attentive mothers display anxiety and are more likely to suffer from heart disease and diabetes.  The difference in pup behavior is correlated to an epigenetic tag.  In dangerous environments, where food is scarce, mother rats have less time to be attentive. In those harsh surroundings, their anxious pups are less likely to be eaten by a predator and more likely to find food.  Both of these environmentally caused epigenetic changes help pups adapt to their environment without conscious learning.

A study of men who were obese and sedentary seems to show that several months of regular vigorous exercise stimulated an epigenetic change that reduced their production of fat.  Another study implies that it is a natural epigenetic process that allows certain animals to grow new limbs when one is severed.  Wouldn’t that be a helpful trick to learn?  Extreme stress and prolonged exposure to stress are being studied as possible epigenetic causes of PTSD and depression.

In much of the research only correlation is proven, not causation. I’ve oversimplified the subject to demonstrate opportunities to prevent and cure illnesses.  They will be accompanied by troubling questions that could have come from science fiction novels.  If epigenetic change can be used to produce more meat from one animal or bigger eggs or sweeter strawberries, should it be legal to do that?  Who will own the intellectual property?

If we could increase our life expectancy by epigenetically delaying the aging process, should we?  Should access to that epigenetic change be a “right” for everyone who wants it?  If we could use our knowledge of epigenetics to pick the kind of children we want, should we?  Would you choose smart?  aggressive?  peaceful?  tall?  studious?  creative?  What if a trait that you want also brings an increased risk of mental illness, violence, diabetes, or heart attack?  If such possibilities become real who can help you use the knowledge?  Will it become a medical specialty limited to physicians or will it be treated like nutritional supplements where anyone can charge a price for coaching you?

What about victims of epigenetic harm caused by pollution or harmful products?   Is it just their bad luck? Do they get compensation from whoever put the chemical into the environment?  Or would society as a whole share the cost?

Some epigenetic changes will be unintentional because we lack sufficient knowledge to predict the outcomes of our actions.  Some decisions will be made by legislatures and others by individuals.  As with nuclear energy, we will find both threats and opportunities. Today is not too soon to start acquiring the knowledge we’ll need to make intelligent choices.

 

 

 

 

All Posts, justice, north carolina, race

WHO CAN SEE POLICE VIDEOS?

Gotcha!  That’s the word that comes to mind when I hear arguments about access to body-cam and dash-cam recordings. Advocates for law enforcement agencies and those who think they’ve been mistreated by police both want to use recordings to justify themselves but the “gotcha” blame game inflames tensions rather than improving public safety.

Controversies surrounding who can see the recordings will make our problems worse.  Imagine the following two scenarios, both of which are likely to occur:

  1.  An individual complains publicly about improper treatment by police. Police respond by releasing a recording which demonstrates that their actions were reasonable and appropriate.
  2. A similar complaint is made and a recording exists but police refuse to release it.

Neither truth nor justice will matter after those events converge into one story.  Together they will appear to be evidence of self-serving decisions and bias by law enforcement – a no-win situation for police and for the public.

More than a year ago, I identified some of the issues and urged passage of a law to regulate access to the recordings.  North Carolina legislators, including local representative Allen McNeill who has extensive police experience, drafted and passed HB 972 which addressed several important concerns.   It’s a good beginning but it leaves law enforcement agencies vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest.

The law allows record retention and release rules that are customized to the unique issues surrounding law enforcement videos by declaring that the recordings are not “public records” to be made generally available like minutes of meetings and government correspondence.  Nor are they “personnel records”.   This will prevent:

  • mass requests for videos by those who want to scan thousands of records for instances of certain kinds of behavior by a particular ethnic minority or police
  • “witch hunts” against a particular officer
  • social media posts of half-dressed people recorded while police intervene in domestic disputes.

HB 972 creates a presumed right to disclosure (seeing the video) for anyone appearing or heard in the recording and for their designated representatives.  It also provides more restrictive criteria for release (obtaining a copy) of the video and it includes a list of circumstances where disclosure or release could be denied.

Four flaws in this otherwise reasonable law make allegations of conflict of interest by police virtually  inevitable.

  1. HB 972 requires the head of the law enforcement agency to decide whether to disclose or release videos.  A citizen who is denied access must hire an attorney and go to court in order to appeal. Public confidence could be improved by reversing the burden of proof – requiring police to go to court to justify denying access to the videos.
  2. A provision of the law allowing police to release videos for “any law enforcement purpose” should be tightened to prevent suspicion that police will release videos that make them look good and withhold those that make them look bad.
  3. One criterion in the law allows denial of access to protect “the reputation of an individual”.  That protection should be limited to bystanders.  It should not apply to interactions between officers and the public.  It is precisely because of concerns about behavior of officers and the public that the recordings are needed.
  4. The law does not allow access to videos by news media, advocacy organizations or the public under any circumstances.  They could only obtain recordings from an involved individual who had met  the police-administered criteria.  The ban on public and news media access to recordings should be reconsidered to see if good criteria can be created.  That will be difficult but probably less harmful than making public release totally subject to police discretion.  The levels of suspicion that already exist between police and some segments of our society mean that police will not be trusted to make unbiased decisions about releasing recordings.

Legislators deserve credit for making this first effort and there is much in the new law that can be helpful.  If they quickly fix its flaws, this otherwise promising law may help build trust between police and citizens.  Without changes it is more likely to generate allegations of bias and conflict of interest by police, no matter how hard they struggle to be fair.

Lives are at stake along with mutual trust between police and the public that they are sworn to protect.  Let’s not play political “gotcha” with these videos.

All Posts, economy, justice, poverty, race

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST YOU?

2 Comments

Try Googling  “Is the system rigged?”  I found:  “FBI Director Comey: I need the American people to know the system is not rigged”  “Trump on Clinton FBI announcement: The system is rigged” “71% of Americans believe economy is rigged”  “The System Didn’t Fail Eric Garner. It Worked How a Racist System Is Supposed to”

The stories shared two disturbing qualities.  1)  Each is about an American institution.  2)  Each contended that some “system” is rigged.  Those headlines introduce angry stories that are backed by at least a few grains of truth.

The people who brought down our financial system avoided prosecution and most of them kept their ill-gotten gains. There is energy for deporting undocumented immigrants and their children but very little for prosecuting employers who hire them without mandatory benefits and wages.

The FBI Director didn’t recommend prosecution of a Secretary of State who was careless with national security information because, he says, she didn’t intend to break any law.  But when I unintentionally made an illegal right turn because I didn’t see the sign prohibiting it, I paid a fine.

We’ve seen people of African descent unjustifiably killed by police and the killers walked away.  Black youth are arrested for possession of marijuana in convenience store parking lots but campus police don’t arrest white college students for the same offense.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”  That one-liner isn’t funny anymore.  Unfairness, whether real or imagined, is a great danger because our freedom and democracy work well only when the great majority of us support the system and see it as fair.

It is the need for fairness, not fear of violence, that should drive our national conversation about these issues.  The violence often comes from one deranged soul (lone wolf) not from Advocacy organizations.   One enraged man (not associated with the Black Lives Matter movement) used their Dallas demonstration as an opportunity to kill five police officers.  One Christian extremist (not associated with the Right To Life movement) shot five officers and six civilians at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic.  The movements express the concerns of substantial numbers of Americans about laws or institutions that they see as unfair. Most don’t promote violence.

During a previous era of dramatic social and economic change, when family farms and the shops of cobblers and blacksmiths were giving way to mechanized industries, America saw similar unrest and even greater violence.  In 1882, Congress passed the  Chinese Exclusion Act banning all Chinese immigration because their cheap labor was perceived as driving wages down.  In 1887 there was a labor demonstration (The Haymarket Affair) in Chicago supporting an 8 hour work day.  Someone threw a bomb.  Gunfire followed.  Seven police and at least four civilians died.  In 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who blamed his unemployment on government policies.  In 1920, Wall Street was bombed, apparently by an activist who believed that the financial system was rigged against him.

Recent events are strikingly similar to our history.   Activists and political candidates promise to fix rigged systems with simplistic ideas: Exclude immigrants.  Build a wall.   Block trade treaties.  Hold police accountable.  Enforce law and order.  Many Americans believe that “other” Americans are rigging our institutions (the system) against them, and that does not bode well for our future.

Our nation’s systems for finance, justice, law enforcement, health care, education and others that compose our national identity must be perceived as fair for all of us. We’ll need genuine improvements in fairness, not just slogans and polite listening. Otherwise we will continue to experience demonstrations and rage from those who believe that systems are rigged against them.

After successful efforts to pass civil rights and voting rights laws, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. shifted his attention toward economic justice by addressing financial and wage issues affecting Hispanic and white workers as well as blacks. At the time of his assassination he was in Memphis supporting a strike for higher wages by public sanitation workers.  Nearly half a century later many issues of economic and racial justice have not yet been addressed. Now is the time to improve, not because of fear but because our national sensitivity to fairness has been raised.    It is said that “Most people don’t read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it.”  I can feel the wall now.

 

All Posts, environment, north carolina

Cleaning Up North Carolina Energy Laws

North Carolina’s Republican legislators have passed energy and environmental laws that impede innovation and economic competition by clean energy entrepreneurs.  They show little regard for the interests of individual citizens and ignore twenty-first century science.  Consider these examples.

In order to build a solar or wind energy installation, the company must own or lease the property where it will be built, comply with local zoning and land use rules, and acquire right of way for transmission of the energy that they produce to customers without use of eminent domain powers or other government authority.  A bill (S-843) recently passed by the State Senate’s “small government” Republicans would add a maze of new regulations and barriers including a 1.5 mile setback from the property line and a 35 decibel (human whisper) noise limit at the property line for wind farms.  Solar farms would have to be invisible from adjoining property.  The bill removes corporate protections for stockholders in wind and solar farms, making them individually liable for damages caused by the corporation.  And it requires the corporation to set aside sufficient money to return the land to its original state after the renewable energy site is closed.

State Law is starkly different for production of natural gas or oil via fracking.  Corporations do not have to own or lease the property under which they drill.  They are allowed to drill horizontally under private property without agreement by the landowner and to put wells on someone else’s land without permission.  Payments to the landowner will be set by a government agency and the landowner can’t refuse the arrangement.  Local governments are not allowed to regulate fracking via zoning, or in any other way.  A government agency can force land owners to accept a pipeline for delivery of oil or gas to market.  Executives who violate laws or rules governing fracking can not be prosecuted for anything more than a misdemeanor.  Owners of corporations are not personally liable for damages that their companies cause.  There is no requirement to return the land and water to it’s original condition after the fracking is completed or set aside money for potential damages.

There is no evidence of substantial or long-term environmental damage by wind or solar farms. Fracking, on the other hand,  is a proven cause of well contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes.  The energy produced by solar and wind farms is as clean as any that is available.  Gas and oil consumption contribute heavily to climate change by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

North Carolina has few earthquakes but we do have inactive geologic faults. Two decades ago those statements were true of Oklahoma but that state experienced 581 earthquakes in 2014.  In that year frackers injected over 64 billion gallons of wastewater under Oklahoma and that is clearly the cause of the earthquakes. (Scientific American, July 2016)   It appears that frackers will not be required to pay for Oklahoma’s earthquake damage. It is clear, however that Oklahoma property owners will need earthquake insurance. The price of that coverage is bound to rise along with the number of quakes.

Why would a state legislature allow local zoning and regulation of wind and solar while denying it for gas and oil?  Why make individual stockholders of clean energy companies responsible for damages caused by the corporation while immunizing frackers from similar claims?  Why is government’s power used to enable environment-damaging industries while discouraging clean energy development?

The success of clean energy producers is visible in the form of solar and wind farms that produce electricity without pollution.  Not everyone likes the changed landscape.  Huge petroleum, gas, coal, and utility companies have a lot of influence with legislators and they don’t like competition from clean energy.

We need to let the market work by applying the same standards across all energy sectors.  If they pollute, they should pay to clean it up.  If they need  a right of way to get energy to the market, the same laws and regulations should apply to all forms of energy.  If they violate safety and environmental standards, criminal and civil penalties should be the same for all businesses.

Legislators who espouse free market principles should be able to collaborate with environmentally conscious colleagues to create fair competition and a cleaner state for all of us.  They will if voters demand it.

 

All Posts

HOMICIDAL DÉJÀ VU – AGAIN

3 Comments

Contrary to many news reports, Sunday’s massacre at the Pulse night club in Orlando was not the largest mass shooting in US History – not even close.  The 1921 Tulsa Race Riot and the Wounded Knee Massacre of Native Americans both claimed more than 200 lives.  Today they might be classified as racial hate crimes.  Nor was the Orlando tragedy the largest mass shooting carried out by religious extremists.  That would be the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, carried out by Mormons against Protestant immigrants passing through Utah – a religious hate crime.

The killings at Pulse set only one new American record – the most victims killed with guns by a single shooter.  The lessons to be learned from our history should be clear.

Lesson one:  There will always be violent people who want to kill a lot of others.  Their motives and hatred may arise from racial, religious, cultural, economic, or political differences.  Or the motives may be personal, as has happened with people fired from their jobs or disciplined at school who return with guns seeking revenge.  And any motive can originate in or be amplified by mental illness.  That is our human condition.

Lesson two:  There is one ingredient in the Orlando massacre that made it possible for one person to shoot so many people.  That ingredient is the modern semiautomatic military-style weapon, an AR-15 in this case.  If we want to reduce the ability of mass killers to shoot large numbers of people quickly (before even those who are armed have a chance to defend themselves) we must limit the types of weapons available to the general public.

Can we keep guns out of the hands of killers?  Background checks to prevent gun purchases by those with criminal records, terrorist ties or mental illness will probably be helpful, but no matter what laws we pass most individuals who want a gun can find a way to get one – legally or illegally.  We should implement background checks as well as we can, but let’s not be fooled into thinking that they will prevent a determined criminal or terrorist from acquiring a gun.

Let’s be clear.  Military weapons are created for the purpose of enabling one soldier to kill the maximum number of enemy combatants.  They are extremely effective.  That is why they have become the weapon of choice for mass killers.  The AR-15, for example, was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Aurora, CO theater, Umpqua Community College, and the San Bernardino Health Department.  The shooter at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Clinic chose a different military-style weapon based on the Russian AK-47 design.

Of the six mass shootings I’ve discussed, two were by Muslims. All six shooters were American born.  Do you think that human nature suddenly changed to produce more mass killers among us?  Or does it seem likely that the killers were always here but modern technology has made mass murder easier?

The weapons that we need to ban from private ownership share several design features.  The will fire as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger for as long as they have ammunition.  They are capable of using large magazines and can fire as many as 100 times without reloading.  They can be reloaded quickly – in less than a full second by an experienced user.  They use ammunition designed to do maximum damage to human flesh – often causing victims to bleed to death quickly even if no vital organ is hit.  They are ideal not only for military use.  They are ideal for mass killers.

Even someone with a concealed carry permit and a handgun has little chance of defending himself if a mass killer with an AR-15 enters the room and begins shooting.  In fact, an armed off-duty policeman tried to stop the Orlando shooter but was unable to do it and nearly died trying.

There is no constitutional problem with banning private ownership of certain kinds of firearms.  We already ban machine guns for the same reason that we now need to ban military style semiautomatic weapons.  There is one way to make that happen.  That is to vote for legislators who promise to do it.  If we don’t do that, there will be more mass murders like the one Orlando.  The only uncertainties are where, when, and who will die.

 

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, budget, deficit, Terrorism, war

WE NEED MORE UGLY AMERICANS

1 Comment

Who was “The Ugly American“?  Most of us know the phrase, but few are aware that the original Ugly American is the hero of the novel by the same name.  Published in 1958, the book described American diplomacy in the fictional Southeast Asian nation of Sarkhan.  Obvious similarities to actual events in nations where the US and the Soviet Union competed for influence (especially Vietnam) made the book a hot topic of discussion in the press and the congress.

The “Ugly American” was Homer Atkins, an American engineer who went to Sarkahn with a desire to help local citizens improve their own lives.  Doing hard, physical work in the fields to design and build simple devices like a bicycle-powered irrigation pump often left Atkins sweaty and dirty, and that “always reminded him that he was an ugly man”.  “Ugly” was a title that he applied to himself, not to others.

In 1958 the Soviet Union was spreading communist ideology into emerging nations around the world.  They portrayed the US as an empire-building colonial power enriching itself and capitalists by dominating smaller nations.  Our diplomatic corps was focused on influencing rulers (often dictators), business owners and military leaders.  The Soviets were interested in the general citizenry, especially any movements to depose rulers or to create wealth among peasant classes and divide them from rulers.  As far away as Vietnam and as close to home as Cuba, the Soviet approach was succeeding.

After reading “The Ugly American” a Senator from Massachusetts was so impressed that he bought a copy for every one of his Senate Colleagues and encouraged them to read it.  Less than two years later, that Senator became President John Kennedy.  Only six weeks into his presidency, Kennedy created the Peace Corps by executive order.  Its mission was to recruit highly qualified volunteers, educate them about local language, customs and issues, then send them to emerging nations as representatives of America.   Kennedy’s decision to create the Peace Corps was inspired by The Ugly American and based on his belief that talented young Americans working alongside local residents without compensation would be excellent ambassadors for our nation and our values.

Today, the Peace Corps remains active and successful, but it is woefully undersized to address needs and opportunities around the world. The Peace Corps budget for 2016 is $410 million.  For comparison, the Department of Defense spent $437 million on military bands in 2015.  The estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (including derivative costs such as benefits for veterans) for the years 2003-2014 is $5 trillion.  That is almost $52 million per hour.  Eight hours of these wars costs more than a full year of Peace Corps funding.

The Ugly American argued that, “…we spend billions on the wrong aid projects while overlooking the almost costless and far more helpful ones…”.  Today budget deficits are massive and our world seems increasingly dangerous. We should re-examine our spending, the results that we are getting, and our national values.  Despite great sacrifice, uncountable deaths and heroic effort, military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan,  and throughout the Middle East has not produced peace, safety, prosperity or stable nations.  Instead we see civil war, poverty, terrorism and refugees that no nation wants to accept.  Americans and Europeans now fear home-grown terrorists who have been nurtured by brethren in the nations that we have invaded.

The three Middle Eastern nations with a history of Peace Corps involvement, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia have plenty of problems but seem more stable and less susceptible to anarchy and terrorism than their neighbors. We’ve supported a wealthy and radical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that seems increasingly vulnerable to popular uprisings because oil revenues are down.  The most stable large nation in the region appears to be Iran – the only one that has avoided our efforts at military driven nation-building.

One can only wonder what the Middle East might be like today if we had consistently offered Peace Corps style nation-building that helps individuals and families improve their own lives based on their own values rather than regime change and military solutions.  People of the region might be more inclined to treat us well if we send “Ugly Americans” to help them build the kind of nation that they want rather than arming them to fight each other.  Under the circumstances, it seems like an idea worth trying.

All Posts, justice, lgbtq, north carolina, public education

THE TRANSGENDER CULTURE WAR

6 Comments

The United States Departments of Justice and Education have notified state governments and publicly funded schools across the nation that they will lose billions of dollars in federal funding if they discriminate against transgender students.  Amidst the flurry of lawsuits, threats, corporate relocations, event cancellations, and propaganda arising from North Carolina’s infamous  HB 2, this is the most meaningful of interventions because it is national in scope and it has big teeth.  I’ll attempt to describe the federal intervention and the rationale behind it.

I was stunned by the brevity and clarity of the federal correspondence.  It’s only 5 pages long. The law is equally understandable and only 9 pages long. The US Court of Appeals decision that documents federal authority to intervene is long and complex but understandable to non-attorneys.  The sample practices raised as many questions as answers, and didn’t seem particularly helpful, but they were distributed only as information not as advice or rules.  My suggestion is that people who are truly interested read the documents for themselves.  Here, in my opinion, are the key points.

From the letter:   “The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.” …  “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

From the law (Title 20):   Compliance … may be effected … by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance … to any recipient (for) a failure to comply …

The US Court of appeals supported the federal policy that “…a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

All of the interested parties would be better served by calm and open discussion of the issues.  Public policies and laws that protect the rights of transgender people while being sensitive to the modesty, privacy and safety concerns of all parties can best be created when there is mutual respect and trust.  Instead we have threats and misinformation.  Our national behavior is disappointing but not surprising.  It’s consistent with how human rights evolve and social change happens here.  Similar events accompanied emancipation of slaves, reconstruction, women’s suffrage, organized labor, school integration, civil rights laws, and marriage equality.

In every case change began in a few local communities and states.  Then a conservative backlash brought legislation to embed discriminatory traditions deeply into public policy.  Reactionary leaders used fear and traditional prejudices to rally support then used raw power and secrecy to impose their will.  In the case of HB 2, a few Republican legislators cooked up the scheme then called an emergency session of the legislature to pass it without public debate.  The public, the press, and many of the legislators who voted for it were not even allowed to read the law until the day it was passed.

Similar ideas have emerged in several Republican dominated states. That is the environment into which the federal government has stepped – just as it ultimately stepped into the other human rights issues that I listed.  That intervention can create a baseline of fair practices to protect transgender people, but it is far from ideal.  Instead of allowing local creativity and cooperation, reactionary intransigence has forced federal intervention and poured gasoline on the always smoldering American culture war.  Federal action will, at best, prevent discriminatory practices.  It can’t produce ideal local results or tolerance.

The debate is over.  Transgender people are entitled to the same protection of laws as people born to that gender.  As we learn to collaborate on the best ways to move ahead it is good to remember that during war, safe and nurturing places often become battlefields where innocent bystanders are victims of the conflict. That is true of culture war as well as military warfare.  Our best course is to plan and accommodate changes that are constructive and safe for everyone.  We can achieve that if we learn together and collaborate toward that goal.

All Posts, guns, justice

RECONSIDERING GUN LAWS AND POLICE SAFETY

3 Comments

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING OF TAMIR RICE

Of all the highly publicized police shootings that we’ve experienced recently, the killing of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio troubles me the most.  Many blame the child or the officers.  But could it be that our laws, traditions and beliefs make such events almost inevitable?

Rice had not violated any law.  He had a toy gun that is designed to shoot plastic pellets.  They are promoted and sold specifically for people who want to play combat and gunfight games.  The guns and ammunition are available online from mainline retailers including Amazon, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart.  People play gunfight games in forests, parks and at businesses organized for the purpose.

Someone called 911 to report a person with a gun in his hand near a recreation center.  The caller wanted police to check the situation and added that the person might be a child and the gun might be a toy.  As police approached, the toy gun was in the open and visible. Then Rice appeared to put it into the front of his pants. It was no more “concealed” than if he had placed it into a holster.  His actions with the toy were legal.  Had he been an adult, he could legally have done the same thing with a real gun because Ohio is an open carry state.

Video from a nearby camera shows that less than two seconds elapsed between the time the patrol car stopped and the time that Tamir Rice was shot.  Rice had not violated any law and was not threatening anyone at the time police arrived.  They had the imagesopportunity to communicate with him from a distance over their loudspeaker and to approach him slowly.  Instead they drove the patrol car close to him at speed and stopped abruptly – enough to frighten anyone.  By using less intimidating procedure, police might have avoided the problem, but they squandered that opportunity and rushed to confrontation.  The case went to a Grand Jury which did not indict either officer.

From the police perspective, two officers were dispatched to look into a situation where someone was reported to be pointing a gun at people.   The officer who killed Rice says that Rice appeared to be handling the gun in a threatening way.  He says that he feared for his own safety and shot Rice to protect himself and his partner. Despite video evidence that the atmosphere of threat and fear was created by the police themselves, the grand jury agreed that the officer had cause for fear and therefore was justified in shooting Tamir Rice .

Police were legally justified in shooting and killing a person who had committed no crime because they perceived that individual’s actions as threats to their safety.  That interpretation of law has been upheld in many places and at many times including this case where a child was treated in a threatening manner by police and then killed by them because they perceived his behavior as threatening.

The Rice family did not feel that justice had been served.  After the Grand Jury returned no indictment, they sued the City of Cleveland. Recently the City agreed to pay $6 million in damages but did not formally admit any fault or liability by the city or its officers.  Even though there was no criminal prosecution,  the City’s attorneys obviously thought it likely that a jury would find the killing unjustified.  The  historical significance of this case is demonstrated by the Smithsonian Museum’s interest in preserving the recreation center gazebo where in occurred.

If police fear for their safety because you appear to have a gun in your hand, does that justify them shooting you?  And if not, how does the officer protect himself from criminals?  Is it time to examine and reconsider laws that allow open carry of firearms?  Or is it time for police to stop bothering people who openly carry guns?  Should parents continue to teach children, especially black children, to fear police?  Or should it be illegal for police to intimidate people and then shoot them, as they did with Tamir Rice?

The answers to those questions may be complex but I’m confident of one thing.  Reconsideration of our laws is long overdue.

finding ways to to form a more perfect union