Who Decides?

George Zimmerman is presumed innocent. That's the beauty of our justice system. That's why an arrest cannot automatically be equated with guilt. Every accused person is guaranteed a trial by a jury of their peers in which all evidence can be presented. We have this system to protect innocent citizens against wrongful accusation and it works much of the time.

However, the trial system is also there to get dangerous people off the streets so they can't victimize others.

If Mr. Zimmerman had been a police officer, chances are he'd currently be suspended, pending investigation of the Trayvon Martin shooting. Someone, I would hope, would look into an officer's use of deadly force against an unarmed teenager. Someone would question whether this was an incidence of racial profiling.

But Mr. Zimmerman is an ordinary citizen. He'd self-appointed himself as neighbor watch. From what I've heard, he wasn't part of a neighbor watch group and wasn't registered as such. If true, then he apparently was not aware that neighborhood watch members are never supposed to engage a suspect. If they see suspicious behavior, they're supposed to call the police and stay put. That's all.

The 911 recording instructed Mr. Zimmerman not to follow or engage the subject, yet he did. By doing so, he assumed the mantle of law enforcement with no legal right to do so. He became a vigilante. The "Stand Your Ground" bill only applies if Mr. Zimmerman "stood his ground" (from where he made the call) and was being attacked. If he was in his home, protecting his family. If he were walking down the street, minding his own business and was mugged. By following Trayvon after being told not to do so, Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. Even so, since Trayvon Martin was unarmed, he presented no danger. Mr. Zimmerman was much bigger and older than the teenager. He was seen by witnesses to be kneeling, straddling Trayvon's face-down body. That seems to indicate that he could subdue the boy physically.

Not only that, but Mr. Zimmerman had phoned the police 46 times in the last 14 months. The vast majority of the calls were false alarms. Mr. Zimmerman seems to have been a tad paranoid, to say the least. And it makes you wonder how many more paranoid, self-appointed vigilantes there are out there, packing heat, who are calling the cops every day and being ignored. Until they take the law into their own hands.

But this is evidence that a jury should hear. Mr. Zimmerman should be arrested. The arrest, as I've said, would not mean that he's guilty. That's for a jury of 12 hopefully unbiased jurors to decide.

If Mr. Zimmerman is never charged, the system of justice fails, because it means, as a nation, we're leaving it to law enforcement, legislators, and vigilantes to decide guilt and innocence. And for the sake of the innocent, that's not acceptable.

muon

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE “OBAMACARE?”

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Supreme Court will be hearing the case against “Obamacare” next week.  Representatives from 26 states want the whole program to be repealed.  It makes no sense, but the truth is that most of what Conservatives are proposing these days makes no sense.

The health care reform passed two years ago has so many positives that Conservatives should like. 

 - it requires a continuation of private health insurance

 - it provides relief for small business owners who will be able to obtain reasonable coverage for their workers, as well as the self-employed,  through insurance plan exchanges

 - it allows young people who are not yet employed to remain on their parents’ plans so they can receive health care while they are looking for work

 - it relieves hospitals so that they are not primary care for a huge number of uninsured Americans, costs they have to “eat.”

 - seniors can receive preventive care which can maintain a greater quality of life

 - every citizen will have the opportunity to take responsibility for their own health care and share costs across the whole population

 - people cannot be denied care due to pre-existing conditions or conditions that cost too much

Where is the down side?  It seems to me that everyone benefits.  Maybe that’s the problem.  In our form of “free market,” only the wealthiest are supposed to benefit.  It is hard for me to believe that all Conservatives are wealthy or even truly imagine that they will be.  Why would they want to vote against a program that would directly benefit most of them?  I suspect it is because their leaders have christened the program “Obamacare” and the first half of that title is what they are really against, no matter what the cost to themselves and their neighbors.

Americans with Disabilities – Progress?

by Ruth A. Sheets

More than 20 years ago the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.  Many of us thought it promised that “soon” disabled persons would be fully integrated into the American society. 

We knew that integration would take some time, but we who live every day with disabilities could dream.

There is no question that some improvements have been made over the past two decades.  Many communities have curb cuts to allow easier wheel chair mobility.  Many buildings have ramps into facilities that used to be inaccessible to anyone who was mobility impaired.  Some restaurants have Braille menus and some elevators have Braille or large-print numbers to indicate floors.

These changes are great and very helpful to many disabled persons, but did you notice that all of these are legally mandated, public, physical changes?  They barely touch the real challenges to disabled people. 

Those “real” challenges which have hardly changed at all in the twenty plus years since ADA may include alterations to the physical environment, but more frequently involve such intangibles as opportunity, services, and attitudes.

The unemployment rate among disabled persons runs around 70% which is significantly higher than faced by any other group of Americans.  Special Education is mandated in schools, but due to budget concerns, children with all types of disabilities are thrown into the same resource rooms, at least 12 students to one teacher.

Technology advances exponentially, but little or no thought is given to making devices accessible from the start.  They generally have to be retrofitted, which, of course, means all kinds of additions to make the technology work for the disabled user, a significant increase in complexity.

Services of all kinds for disabled people are being cut due to economic concerns.  This is at a time when many Americans are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan in some way physically or mentally impaired.  

Medical technology can keep people alive who have serious physical conditions.  It can provide prostheses and other equipment to help people to get around.  But, what about quality of life, the ability to contribute to the larger society? 

That takes me to the topic of attitude.  Having physical accessibility just isn’t enough.  The attitude barriers are , in my view, nearly as strong as they were when ADA was passed. 

The only wheelchair users on my bus route are on their way to or from the hospital or doctor, not a job.  The only other visually impaired employee in my school district was laid off and has not yet found another position.  My visually impaired sister, who has tremendous computer experience and lives in a major technology area, took many months to find work.

Why would an employer hire a disabled person when a fully able-bodied person might be able to do the job as well and with no need to adjust the work environment?

How do we “see” disabled persons?  Do we say things like “There but for the grace of God go I,” or something like it when we encounter someone who is disabled?  Maybe we should stop and think about what we are really saying.  Is that what we actually mean?  "We got God’s grace and they didn’t, too bad for them."

The Greatest Generation?

by Ruth Sheets

I just finished reading the book THE AMERICAN HOME FRONT 1941-1942 by Alistair Cook.  Many people will recognize Mr. Cook from his stint as “Masterpiece Theatre’s” Master of Ceremonies, the man who introduced American audiences to some of the BBC’s best offerings.

Alistair Cook came to the US from Great Britain in 1937 and served for years as an interpreter of American culture to the Britts.  In 1942, he traveled across America recording his impressions of the people and the impact of the war on them and their communities.  He didn’t pull punches.  He described the altruism of people helping neighbors who had family members gone off to war.  He also described the meanness of folks who had suffered too long, or who just didn’t care. 

What surprised me most was the number of issues encountered that are still on the table today.  Poor people were considered poor by choice.  Unions were often seen as the cause of all work-related troubles by people in what are now known as “right to work states."  Native Americans were among the poorest Americans.  Mexicans were resented, particularly in the border states. 

Despite the nation being at war, everyone seemed to be out to get as much money as they possibly could, from farmers to industrialists. 

Defense industries competed for workers leaving small towns bereft of able-bodied workers to keep their businesses going.  Mines and logging companies removed resources from the earth in such quantities they could not even consider the effects, long and short-term, on the environment.

The adults of the World War II era have been called “The Greatest Generation,” but reading this book gave me some new perspective.  It is true that those folks managed to make it through the worst depression in American history and stepped up to fight what was the most devastating war of the 20th Century, but they may hold their position of honor more because we value their sacrifices rather than that they were “better” people than those in any other generation.

Out of fear, they interned thousands of Japanese Americans, citizens who were totally loyal to our country.  They maintained institutional racism despite the service of African-American and Latino Americans in all aspects of America’s war effort.  Many of that generation got rich from the war and their descendents wield power today, and not always for the good of anyone else.

I just wonder, was this generation any “greater” than the folks who marched and fought for Civil Rights for African-Americans in the 60’s, women’s rights in the 70’s and 80’s, disabled persons’ rights in the 80’s and 90’s and gay rights in the 90’s and 2000’s?  Were they any better soldiers than those we sent to Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?  Were they more noble in their survival of the Great Depression than people today facing the current deep recession?

It seems to me that surviving a depression and fighting a war aren’t sufficient to call a generation “Great.”  Maybe greatness comes with building, sharing, supporting, one another, not just one’s own kind, but the broader spectrum of humankind.  Maybe, the “greatest generation” is still to come.  Maybe it’s the children born since 2000 or so who have the potential to step up to do the really great things.  I am looking forward to seeing what happens when these kids come of age.

TESTING – TO WHAT END?

by Ruth A. Sheets

PSSA (Pennsylvania State System of Assessment) testing in the areas of Reading and Math begins Monday, March 12^th.  This is the big stakes testing that every PUBLIC SCHOOL student in the state grades 3-8 & 11 must submit themselves to.  I can’t help wondering “to what purpose?”

The testing takes place in March for Reading and Math and April for Writing and Science.  The scores take months to come back.  By that time, summer is upon us and results are set aside until September.  By then, students have moved, children have changed schools, and teachers have retired, transferred, or moved to a different grade.  Thus, the data is only marginally helpful.

All public school students take the tests.   Over time, the primary purpose seems to have become making comparisons between and among schools.  The wealthiest districts are set against the poorest and of course always come out gleaming in the glory of their high scores.  The poor kids, oh well, their teachers just suck.  That’s why they don’t get at least “Proficient” scores. 

The readers who see the scores in the newspapers don’t think “Wow, I guess having a lot of money and good resources in the schools does make a difference.  Why don’t we see that all of our schools have the same advantages.  Wouldn’t that create the most amazing work force in the world!”  The reader actually thinks, “Something has to be done about those awful schools.  They should fire those teachers.  Their union gets them so much money and look how badly their kids do!”

The threat hangs over every disadvantaged school. You’re going to close if you don’t improve.  What happens then?  Where do those kids go?  Will one of the wealthy districts absorb them?

Not likely, but even if they do, what will happen to those children?  They will be at the bottom of every class, no matter what their actual abilities.  They will be seen as second-class citizens at best.  No one will think this is a problem since “at least this situation is better than the school they used to go to.”

What about trying something different?  What about making the playing field a bit more fair?  Instead of doing the annual score comparisons, use the tests to see where the whole state can come together to support our most needy children.  Instead of pumping money into charter schools, (often run by private companies) give struggling schools the best leaders as principals.  Give resources to repair schools, playgrounds, and parking lots so that students will have a school to be proud of.  Provide counselors and psychologists as well as other support staff to help kids deal with the personal issues that get in the way of their learning.

Use the latest research to figure out how to improve student health.  Have nurses in every school to address basic health needs.  Provide all schools with music and art as an integral part of student education, not just something you do when you can get around to it.

In short, if the PSSA is not going to help to improve learning and school life, stop requiring it.  Use the millions of dollars it takes to administer it to do some good for our children.  Oh well, I know that won’t happen!  Too many people benefit from the tests, none of those people our children.  And, there’s that “accountability” thing.  But only teachers and sometimes, principals are held accountable. 

The poor children and their families are too busy just surviving to commit the time and energy to fighting the injustice.  That leaves the battle against injustice to the rest of us.  I don’t think we have the will.  Too bad!  We do like to think we’re caring and fair.  Surprise!