The “To Do” List

by Ruth A. Sheets

About four years ago, I began maintaining a “To Do” list so I could keep track of the many different kinds of things I wanted and needed to get done.  I put a check in front of each item as it was finished, a great reinforcement system! .

I am a strong advocate of the “To Do” list for keeping up with life and mention it often to my family.  Recently, my sister said, “That’s what Mitt Romney’s campaign reminds me of.  Being president is on his 'To Do' list and he just wants to check it off.”

Her remark crystalized something that has bothered me about Mitt Romney for a long time.  He does not seem to have strong positions on anything and he doesn’t seem to mind altering the truth.

I cannot see Mitt Romney, so I have no visual image of the distinguished-looking older man that people describe Romney as being.  What I have is only what I hear.  In his words, I do not hear much sincerity. He sounds as though he is always smiling, almost sneering, when he speaks.  It seems almost as though the campaign is some kind of game for him. 

Or, maybe, all of this is just an item on his “To Do” list.  Perhaps each of Mr. Romney’s accomplishments was on his list and has been checked off when completed.  Imagine

the list:  go to an Ivy League school, check; marry a woman who wants to have a lot of kids, check; start an investment business, check; make a lot of money breaking up companies, check: run for the Senate, check; serve as a  bishop in the church, check; help fix the failing 2002 winter Olympics, check, become governor of Massachusetts, check; run for President of the United States, check.

The question, is BEING President on his “To Do” list?  I suspect even he doesn’t believe he has what it takes to be president, so he is conducting a lack–luster campaign.  His 180 degree position adjustment on most issues, lying, and pandering might indicate that being the nominee is what he needed to achieve, so he can move on to the next item on his life “To Do” list. 

A troubling thing is that a lot of people see Mr. Romney as “The Great White Hope” and will be devastated if he doesn’t win, or even, if he does.  They don’t know that he really doesn’t mean most of what he is saying.  All this is just a means to an end, a check on his list.

She Thinks It’s About Push-Ups

by Ruth A. Sheets

NPR, like other news services, has been interviewing voters throughout the election season.  Voters are asked who they support, rarely why.  A while back, at a Romney rally in Indiana, a woman said she “couldn’t stand the sight of Obama” and that Michele Obama “doesn’t even look like a first lady.”  Her tone conveyed disgust.  This comment stirred a lot of controversy on FaceBook, Twitter, etc.      

On Friday morning, this interviewer reported that he had met up with the same controversial voter again at another Romney event.  He asked the woman about the comments she had made.  She said “They weren’t racist.”  She then proceeded to explain that Ms. Obama does things other First Ladies don’t do, like “doing push-ups down there on the floor and she goes around in shorts.”  The interviewer prompted, “you mean casual,” and she agreed.

Laura Bush, casual

The woman’s comments made me start thinking about previous First Ladies and what made them different from Ms. Obama.  Laura Bush was mostly out of the limelight and didn’t have much to say when she was in it.  Hillary Clinton was out there in the thick of things, even sometimes accused of being “Manish.”  Barbara Bush was the grandmotherly-looking tyrannical matriarch of the Bush family.  Nancy Reagan was often unpleasant with the people she worked with, but always looked great.  Roselyn Carter was genteel but spoke her mind  often.  Betty Ford went public with her drug and alcohol problems.  Pat Nixon didn’t really stand out in any particular way, but was appreciated as a mother.   

That takes care of the First Ladies of the past forty years.  What do they have in common?  They were all involved in “causes” which they talked about and tried to get support for.  There isn’t much else they share.   Some were active, some not.  They were not the same political party.  Some were extremely careful about their appearance and others much less so.  Some were outgoing, others more retiring.

Barbara Bush as a typical Red Sox fan

OK, Yes, I didn’t mention the one big thing these previous First Ladies had in common: they were all White, of European descent.  Clearly Michele Obama is not.

The voter whose comments I discuss here thinks her problems with the Obamas in the White House has something to do with push-ups and casual dress.  That is because if she believes that, she doesn’t have to confront something that runs as deep and is as complex as racism.

MA and PA Senate Races

by muon

Time to talk about some of this year's Senatorial races.

Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, during his debate with challenger Elizabeth Warren, decided to introduce race as an issue in his campaign, He complained that Ms. Warren claimed to be a Native American. He hinted that she only used her claims of race to advance her career. He said he could tell whether she was Native American simply by looking at her, and to quote him, "Clearly, she is not." (I suppose, in Brown's limited experience, he believes Native Americans need to look as if they've ridden out of a Roy Rogers movie, complete with feathers and war paint.)  In a pathetic echo of the Obama birther movement, he challenged her to "release her records."  If you want to watch this part of the debate, click here.  

 Last Saturday, some of Brown's staffers tried to disrupt a Warren rally by doing tomahawk chops and war whoops. (Watch the clip here.)  Seriously, fellas? It never occurred to you that those actions might be considered racially offensive? Especially since anyone watching sports in the last decade has heard of Native American tribes repeatedly asking the Atlanta Braves to discourage their fans (the vast majority of whom are white, surprise, surprise) from doing the exact same offensive behavior.

The staffer in the tan cap leading the chops and whoops is Brad Garrett, Brown's state GOP operative. The guy in the blue cap and camo shirt is Jack Richard, Constituent Services Counsel for Brown. Mr. Richard is on the federal payroll to the tune of 60,000 taxpayer bucks annually. Yes, while spreading racial devisiveness, Jack Richard's pocketing our tax money.

Scott Brown, though he said he regretted the actions of his staffers, launched a new website this week, where he calls Elizabeth Warren a "Fake Indian." Last night, Cherokee Chief Bill John Baker released this statement:"We need individuals in the United States Senate who respect Native Americans and have an understanding of tribal issues. For that reason, I call upon Sen. Brown to apologize for the offensive actions of his staff and their uneducated, unenlightened and racist portrayal of native peoples."

I'd go further than that. As a taxpayer, I demand that all staffers on the federal payroll who participated in the event be fired.  If Brown wants to keep them on and pay them out of his own pocket, fine. But I don't want them on my dime.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tom Smith                            Bob Casey

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, senate challenger Tom Smith is running ads claiming incumbent Bob Casey "hasn't passed a bill in 6 years." This is quite true. Senators cannot single-handedly pass bills. However, Mr. Casey did vote support the following bills: Middle Class Tax Relief, Veterans Jobs, FDA Food Safety, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Children's Health Insurance and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to name a few. If bills didn't pass, it was because of GOP filibusters.

In August, Smith stated that he opposes abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest, and he equated the trauma of pregnancy by rape to that of having a baby out of wedlock.

Smith claims to have been a successful job creator, owning a coal company that employed over 100 people. If you look up Thomas J. Smith, Inc., records state that the firm employs 25 people, yet had gross annual sales of $5,075,000 in 2011. Which explains how Smith has the moolah to primarily self-fund his campaign and flood the airwaves with lies.  Smith claims he retired in 2010, yet the site above still lists him as the owner. If he ever did employ 100 people, he shrunk his workforce by 75%.  Good work, Job Creator.

A Dream

by Ruth A. Sheets

I just received an email from a group rebuildthedream.com.  They are working to improve sustainable economic opportunities for all Americans.  One of their current actions is to hold a community event that will activate the concern, creativity, innovation, and power of communities and individuals.  On their website, visitors are asked to describe their dream for America,  Respondents are encouraged to tell their story. 

Some time passed before I could think through what my dream is.  I realized that I actually have a lot of dreams, but have not really formed them into words and sentences I could articulate.

I examined my feelings and beliefs and something that touches me personally surfaced.  The following is the story I sent.

_____

As a disabled woman, I have seen the marginalization of disabled Americans:  elimination of jobs, limited presence in the media, elimination of services, technology that passes disabled persons by while providing able-bodied persons with a range of features that are unnecessary, you get the picture. 

I worked for the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC for four years.  I thrived in the open, accepting atmosphere of Government service.  It is the only place I have ever worked where disabled people were accommodated just as a matter of course.  Ramps and elevators  were ubiquitous.  Large print materials, as well as  Braille were often available.  Most programs and events were interpreted in sign language or through closed captioning.  Disabled persons hustled to good jobs like their able-bodied colleagues.

My dream is that disabled people in large numbers will experience this same level of acceptance in all areas of life. 

It is hard, however, to move invisible people not only into visibility, but acceptance and inclusion. When the economy is bad, disabled workers are the last to be hired.  Through lack of accessibility, disabled people often avoid public gatherings.  Real, natural accommodation can be costly and is often not seen as worthwhile for the few who would take advantage of it.

_____

This month’s para Olympics presented a different picture of disabled people, but few Americans watched.  I bet the para Olympuc village was a terrific place to be, where people didn’t have to worry about how they would get from place to place and could use the various facilities. 

Maybe a way to begin a change is by teaching our children to be more respectful of disabled people they see or meet.  Instead of small print on everything, printers could enlarge materials meant to reach a large audience.  Attractive ramps and other accessibility features could be an automatic part of all new construction.  Disabled students could be actively recruited by colleges and employers.  Workers can be trained to give and receive meaningful support from their disabled colleagues.  Able bodied citizens could step back and let disabled citizens state what changes are needed and help throughout the process.

I bet we could come up with a lot of even better ideas if we had a will and if disabled persons were actively involved in advancing this dream. 

I know, I know, dream on!  I guess I will have to. 

Anyone Can Teach

by Ruth A. Sheets

I must say “thank you” to the teachers of Chicago for standing for the kids and for themselves.  During the past few years, teachers and public schools have been the target of all kinds of folks who “know” about education and are sure they “know” exactly what to do about it.

According to standardized tests, our children are doing so poorly that it is amazing we are still a “first world country.”  We are in an education crisis, say those who claim to know. 

As so often happens when America faces difficult situations, we want to turn the problem over to private for-profit entities who, for a price, will make things all better.  There is a lot of money in education, and the for-profits want as big a chuck of it as they can get.

Do these folks know anything about education?  Does it matter?  Since everyone has been a student sometime in their lives, they are automatically experts on education.  That’s like saying “I’ve been a patient, therefore I know everything about medicine.”

Trained educators know that there must be some type of accountability and that there should be an effective system of evaluating teachers and how they are doing.  Subjectivity, not objectivity, however, reigns in the evaluation process.  Standardized testing is the tool of people who think that “one size fits all” in determining success.  It’s easier than actually trying to figure out how to help kids learn more effectively and teachers to teach more effectively.

So what do we do in the face of poor test scores?  We respond to anyone who comes in with the promise of making things better.  We Americans have always been vulnerable to snake oil salesmen.

“Give me a school and I’ll fix it.  Make sure you give me a lot of money too, tax-payer money that is.  We’ll make the school day longer, pay teachers less or better yet, make their pay tied to how well their kids do on tests.  Pay for the computers the students need and we need more money for trips and air conditioning for the school.  We’ll show you!

"Accountability, what’s that?  The students didn’t do well this first five years because we are trying to clean up after those awful public school teachers who ruined the kids and it will take at least another ten years to see any progress.  I know what I am doing."

The parents believe that this charter school is better than the regular public schools, so, OF COURSE, IT IS.

This nonsense is what the teachers in Chicago are fighting.  Everyone thinks they know what students need.  Everyone thinks they can teach and that when kids don’t score well, THERE must be a bad teacher INVOLVED SOMEWHERE. 

People like Mayor Emmanuel love standardized tests and are so sure that these tests tell EVERYTHING about the students tested, that they would tie a teacher’s salary to the scores.  They hand over “charter” schools to anyone who comes along promising miracles.  A few of these charter schools are doing better, but not many.

What does happen, though is union busting.  It is about trying to destroy one of the few unions with any power left in the United States TO STAND AGAINST CORPORATE GREED.  Usually, it is Republicans who run this racket, but lately, some Democrats have gotten on board.  That’s too bad because it leaves so few people out there standing for us teachers and our students.

If our nation really cared about our children and how well they do in school, we would be actively addressing the issues related to poverty.  It is no accident that the schools where children are performing poorly are in poverty-ridden areas. 

If our leaders were as well-educated as they would like us to think they are, they would have noted the connection between poor schools, poor performance, poor communities, and poor children.  Where were these leaders when their teachers were showing them how to make meaningful connections, back in the day?  They were probably daydreaming about all the money attendance at their exclusive private school would bring them.

The Teflon Party

by Ruth A. Sheets

President Reagan was often referred to as the “Teflon President,” particularly by those who were not enthralled by his charm.

While president, he put thousands of people’s lives in danger by firing the air traffic controllers because he didn’t want to pay them what they were worth.  Reagan was seen as the hero.

Reagan’s administration added to the poverty rate in America through its “trickle down economics,” which of course, did not work.  Everything else was blamed for this plan’s failure.  Reagan’s plan is still at the top of the Republican Party’s policies thirty years later.

The Reagan administration illegally sold arms to the Contras after dealing with Iranians, the guys who held Americans hostage for more than a year.  Reagan’s claim that he was out of the loop and Oliver North, looking good in his uniform, allowed the charges to slide off.

The Bush administration was asleep at the switch when 911 happened, but they were allowed to trick America into two wars which are still not behind us, eleven years later.

The Bush crowd passed policies that led to a near depression, yet has been able to blame the Democrats because the nation has not fully recovered in less than four years under President Obama.  Republicans actually look good and honest to about half the US population even though their economic plans, such as they are, have never been even a bit successful.

I just don’t get it!  Republicans can nearly bring down the global economy, put a lot of people at risk, deal illegally with foreign powers, spout overtly racist comments, bust unions so people will earn less for their work and receive fewer benefits.  The Government and our economy  can be held hostage or even shut down so Republicans can get what they want.  Yet a lot of folks don’t seem to mind at all.

What am I missing here?  If any of these things had happened during a Democratic watch, everything would stick for the next twenty or thirty years and no Democrats would be elected.  The Republicans have paid little or nothing for the damage they have caused. 

I suspect that big money has a lot to do with this situation.  Republicans have a lot of it and spread it around in just the right amounts to breed power.  The money myth tells Americans that those who have money must have America’s best interests at heart.  They don’t!  The only interests they have at heart are their own.  But, for many Americans, whatever the Republican wealthy do is okay, no matter who is hurt.  Money and power are Republican Teflon.  

Run it Like a Business??

by Ruth A. Sheets

It has been at least 25 years since I first heard the phrase “run it like a business.”  This was in reference to activities at my graduate school.  I assumed that the speaker meant that we should stay within our budget and be systematic about how things were done.

OK, I got that.  Than I heard it in relation to a church.  That seemed a bit odd because I don’t usually think of the two in the same  context.  I thought it meant the budget thing again, but then I learned it had something to do with contracts and investments too.    

OK, that makes sense.  Good investing makes it possible to do things you otherwise might not be able to do for your church and the community.

As the years have passed, I hear “run it like a business” in reference to so many aspects of life it has become a trivial phrase.  I am not so sure about the validity of “running” anything but a business “like a business.”

We have created a business myth in America that lets us think that the experience a person gains in running a company or working at high levels of commerce or finance qualifies them for almost any other position of power you can name. 

In the past couple of decades or so, businesses have not exactly covered themselves in glory.  Union busting, cutting wages, outsourcing jobs, overworking remaining employees, providing the cheapest medical benefits if any benefits at all, jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens by selling unaffordable mortgages, leverage buyouts, lowering quality of products and services.  Greed rules.  Particularly poor and working class folks have been duped into believing that someday if they work hard enough they will be among the wealthy.  You get the picture.

I am pretty sure that I don’t want anything I am directly associated with “run like a business.”  We Americans often find it pretty easy to swallow swill when it is clothed in phrases like “free market” and “opportunity.”

I am not saying that there is no value in the free market and of course, opportunity is essential, but lately, business has worked out that free market is only free to those who are rich enough to participate. The opportunity doesn’t reach to all citizens, especially those against whom the deck is always stacked.

Now, we are told that the best person to lead America is a businessman, Mitt Romney, just because of his business experience.  How does that qualify him for anything?  His brand of business is based on profiting on the misfortune of others. His brand of business involves avoiding the taxes that support everyone, setting himself apart from everyone else because they just didn’t work hard enough to get what Romney worked hard enough to get.

Besides being build on a lie, this approach to management is destructive, devisive and patronizing.  There is no respect or appreciation, only the smell of money and the shape of dollar signs.  I choose to believe we can do better.

We're All In This Together

by muon

I was thinking last night that maybe we need a national pep rally more often. Not just Democrats or Republicans or Tea Party or Occupy, but everyone. The only time Americans seem to cheer for Americans is during the Olympics. I think we need to cheer for more than our sportsmen. We need to cheer for each other, and not only every four 4 years.

The DNC was for the most part a very positive event. The speeches didn't ignore what was wrong with America, in fact, many brought to light nuances of issues that voters may never have considered, but the tone of most of the speeches was that, working together, we could fix things. By the end of the convention last night, I think every person in that auditorium felt more empowered than they did at the opening gavel. Chances are, lots of TV viewers were effected the same way.

What difference does it make?

When FDR took office in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, he spoke to the nation frequently. The tone of his words was very much like that of the speeches of the past week. He communicated an optimism in America's capabilities that went a long way toward Americans picking themselves up and making the nation economically healthy once more. We hear about things like consumer confidence, and that's part of it--that is, people feeling secure enough to spend money they otherwise would save for a rainy day. Optimism--a light at the end of the tunnel--makes people quit waiting for someone else to help. If they see something better, they work toward it. Fear, as FDR said, makes us hesitate, then despair makes us sit down and stop trying.

Political views aside--considering solely the tone of the discourse--I can't describe the GOP Convention as optimistic or uplifting. The speeches dwelt on who to blame for America's problems. When the subject turned to mending those problems, we heard, essentially, Romney, Ryan, private companies, and the Religious Right will fix everything (details to be disclosed after the election). The tone was "We'll decide what's right for America," taking even their own audience out of the process.

I prefer to be asked "What's good for America? And how can we all make it happen?"

As former President Clinton put it: "We're all in this together is a far better philosophy than you're on your own."

So Much for Freedom

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Republican Party likes to get the word out that it is the party of “freedom.”  They also claim that we should be “free” of big government and that government should be out of our lives. 

The party publicists know that the word “freedom” triggers a lot of feelings about America and how special the country is.  It makes their faithful feel patriotic and important.

When one examines their idea of freedom, however, it may cause one to pause a moment to ask for their definition.  No one seems to do that these days, especially the media.  Republicans are delighted because they don’t want people to know what is really going on.

They cry “freedom” when they take away a woman’s right to choose, related to her body and family planning.

They cry “freedom” when they propose laws to eliminate EPA and other forms of regulations that would protect citizens from environmental destruction, pollution, and hostile takeovers.

They cry “freedom” when they pass laws to require photo IDs for a type of voter fraud that doesn’t actually exist in numbers high enough to matter, yet which will disenfranchise the most vulnerable of our voters.

They cry “freedom” when they pass laws that encourage citizens to treat immigrants with disrespect, which can lead to violence, in order to drive the immigrants out – “voluntarily,” of course.

They cry “freedom” when they refuse to consider gun control legislation which could protect citizens as well as law enforcement from folks who have no business having any gun let alone an assault weapon.

They cry “freedom” when they cut funds for education, malign teachers, and take over school districts, claiming they are protecting people from waste or poor teachers.  

This last false cry of “freedom” hits me particularly hard because my district, Chester Upland in Southeastern Pennsylvania has been a target of these education cuts and government takeover.  Our district was handed to our governor’s campaign supporters with no accountability requirements for what happens in the schools which are paid for by taxes yet run by for profit companies, and they do make a lot of profit off the backs of our citizens.

For ten years, Pennsylvania government officials ran our district and left us about 40 million dollars in debt.  They made several charter schools, all but two of which failed badly.  The larger one that still operates skims off the money it wants before the rest of the district gets any funding.  The money goes to them straight from the state capital, and into the pockets of the governor’s Republican friends. 

Again we are living under a takeover.  To make sure that the district cannot be successful, the state legislature has passed a bill essentially turning our district over to Joe Watkins, a powerful Republican, who is a voucher freak and a charter school aficianado.  He has 30 days to make a plan for what will happen to our district – charters, vouchers, or something else.  He knows nothing of our community and the poverty here, yet he will decide our fate in just 30 days.  Our teachers will lose their jobs, our union will be broken, because of course, a charter school can’t have a union.  And with this new “freedom” contracts, dedication, professionalism, and service mean nothing.   .

The deck has been stacked against a whole community in the name of “freedom.”  This reminds me of Orwell’s “1984” when words like freedom meant exactly the opposite.  I am guessing that most Republicans have not read that book and those who have, actually like the premise.   

It feels weird to be fighting against “freedom,” but that’s what we need to do, the Republican brand of freedom.