Wednesday, April 18, 2018

OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION

by Ruth A. Sheets

Last week I read a book written about 20 years ago, The Least of These My Brethren by Dr. Daniel Baxter.  It is a memoir of a doctor who served on an AIDS ward among the poor and homeless of New York City in the 1990's.  The book took me back to my time working with people with HIV and AIDS in Nashville a few years earlier.  The illnesses from which Dr. Baxter's patients suffered were similar to those experienced by the people I worked with.  I heard again the names of the diseases and had flashbacks to the late 1980s and the suffering I witnessed. 

The diseases people with AIDS suffer from are referred to as opportunistic infections because they arise from the destruction of a person's immune system.  HIV, however,  is the actual underlying cause. 

A flash of insight came to me.  Donald Trump's election to the American presidency is an opportunistic infection in the American system.  The underlying cause is as insidious to our country as HIV is to the human body.

Our nation's HIV is inequality.  At some level, pure equality is not possible.  Many factors help to determine each person's starting point in life.  Where were you born?  Who were your parents?  What genetic contributions did your family make?  What environmental contributions did your family and community make?

Clearly people have different abilities, different gifts, different likes and dislikes which may or may not come from birth.  The shaping of these into the person each of us will be is steady and ongoing. For many, our birth circumstances provide advantages which generally only increase over time.  Others' disadvantages are so overwhelming any improvement is nearly miraculous.

Probably, if you asked anyone  living in America, the response would be that equality is a goal toward which we should strive.  Everyone should have the same rights.  Everyone should be able to vote, have a job, worship as they wish, be able to speak freely, and pursue happiness.

The problem with equality has been identified often, most recently for me by my sister who reminded me that to someone who has privilege, equality seems like oppression.

Privileged Americans do not actually want equal opportunity.  They want their advantage (which of course, they see as equal opportunity).  Since people of privilege, in their own eyes, work harder, create more, in short, deserve everything they have and earned it "fair and square."  They achieved it entirely on their own. 

Their belief structure says poor people are poor because they are lazy.  They don't work very hard.  They don't care about their homes or neighborhoods, or anything else for that matter.  So, "if they worked as hard as I work, they would have the same opportunities I have." 

Privileged Americans have a similar set of beliefs about every group that is not their own.  Women aren't as dedicated to their work and besides, belong in the house taking care of the children they must have.  People of color just aren't as good.  God made them to be less, so they should be grateful and happy with what they are given.  Refugees and immigrants in general are going to take my job and wreck my neighborhood, so we can't let them in. 

The American government is supposed to support these beliefs.  The most recent tax law makes that clear.  Cut taxes on the rich because they earned that money and the folks who need assistance are takers and don't deserve it.  We give them too much already.

The challenge is that some of these thoughts are not conscious. Most privileged Americans do not go around thinking, I'll sue that college for letting that obviously inferior black guy in instead of me (although some have done that).  They don't say to themselves, "I'll sexually harass that woman to make her feel more inferior than I actually think she is."  But privilege allows these beliefs to be manifest on a regular basis.

When challenged that their actions are racist or sexist, privileged folks claim they most certainly are not and that we are all just too PC (politically correct).  When managers are being held to a new, hopefully corrected standard, they whine that they are being picked on  and targeted.

Into this land of privileged advantages came Donald Trump, a bearer of privilege disguised as sympathy for those who could have what he has, if only those horrible other people didn't always get in the way, taking their jobs, moving into neighborhoods where they don't belong, getting handouts, leaving the givers poorer.

Mr. Trump has infected the nation with a cancerous nationalism that can ravage the body if not checked.  His "me first" approach to everything introduces a creeping fear that "maybe I won't get what I am entitled to, since we are giving so much to the undeserving."

Equality does not mean that everyone has exactly the same things, the same amount of money, lives in the same place, etc. etc.  That kind of system will never work, but it does mean that one's color, gender, nationality, educational background, religion, name, or any other factor does not automatically get you anything or deprive you of anything either.  It means we all have access to affordable health care.  We all have the right to choose what happens to our bodies.  It means we all have the same educational opportunities and chances to get meaningful jobs and affordable quality housing. 

If we had this kind of equality, someone like Mr. Trump would have gotten no traction.  He would have been seen as the pathetic human being he is.  He does not care about anyone but himself.  He claims to be a genius, but never reads, makes serious inquiries, or takes time to think through anything.  He throws tantrums like a toddler and bullies like a 3rd grader on the playground.  He is a terrible business man who cheats and lies his way through life, expecting everyone to be OK with that.   

Until we can figure out how to effectively treat our nation's underlying inequality, we will have to treat the opportunistic infections of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, privilege, fear, and so much more.  Let's get going.  It's going to take a lot of us to rid our society of these deadly infections.

Monday, April 16, 2018

The Media and Negativity


by Ruth A. Sheets

Recently, I heard on the radio that Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is planning to run for a third term.  The news reader had to immediately remind everyone that last year Mr. Menendez had been on trial for bribery.  After she reviewed aspects of the case, she said the prosecution had dismissed all charges.  Wow!  Announce someone running for office, someone who has served his state for more than a decade and the only thing you can say about him is that he had been tried for bribery with dismissed charges?  What about that he supports health care rights for all, stands for voting rights, and has helped numerous New Jersey citizens in a variety of other ways.  A quick personal story would have been effective.

This news item made me realize what media's role is in our politics and it's not good for our democracy.  It is the, Remind everyone of the candidate's negative attributes.  What is gained from this negativism toward certain candidates?   

During the 2016 election, it took months for someone in the mainstream media to call Mr. Trump's prevarications "lies."  I understand it is hard to imagine a presidential candidate lying so openly, but that's what he was doing.  It is interesting that we were not constantly reminded what Mr. Trump was saying was replete with falsehoods.  Why didn't the media do that? 

From reporters, we learned nearly everything we needed to know about Mr. Trump's positions, or at least those at the moment.  We learned very little, if anything about those of any of his opponents, even in the general election, but we sure did learn their negative attributes and what Mr. Trump thought of them.  The mainstream media and others kept us well informed of these.  Why?

We heard over and over that Hillary Clinton had something "not quite right" with her emails and she was chastised by the FBI director Mr. Comey, yet he neglected to report that many others in high government positions were doing the same.  He also neglected to mention that frequent hacking of systems in Government may have meant Ms. Clinton's arrangement was not the worst thing she could have done.  The media covered "the email scandal" word for word, day by day, so everyone was primed when Mr. Comey came back and said he had found new emails, just before the election.  The media covered this, and in shocked tones before anyone found out the emails were ones the FBI had in its possession for months, maybe years. 

More disturbing, Mr. Comey neglected to talk about Russian interference in the campaign.  Even though the FBI was aware of it, he just couldn't bring himself to mention it.  The media let this pass.  It was hinted they all thought Ms. Clinton would win, so it wouldn't matter.  Uh huh.

What is going on?  We yell at Facebook for its permission giving political organizations access to member data and selling ad space related to the election to Russian trolls.  Yes, Facebook needs to answer for that, but the media at all levels needs to answer for its conduct in the previous election cycles.  Where were they? 

I don't remember a definition of the "free press" including amplifying negativity around some candidates while dismissing real problems of integrity on the part of others. 

Some of the media has jumped on the bandwagon of the Russia investigation, but is that as big an issue as Mr. Trump's next tweet, especially if it is a negative comment about someone whose politics or actions he doesn't like?  Already, NPR is being sustained by corporate sponsors who have their own agendas.  How much is this support determining what is covered on NPR's programs?  There is no way the support of the small listeners can match the money available from corporations.  The negative digs inserted into reports on candidates or public actors can influence citizens' voting response, after all, NPR . . .! 

I use NPR as an example, but it is happening everywhere in media.  Whatever one may think of Senator Menendez, he did not deserve the negative comments delivered at the time of his pre-announcement for running for office again.  Media actors need to examine more carefully where their loyalties lie.  They should be with truth, justice, and the American way, but I suspect these are not always their guiding stars. 

Do we have any indication that things will be different in 2018?  Not that I can tell.  Money is the medium.  We have allowed corporations to become enormous and have told them their money is speech in any capacity they choose, so unless the "free press" reports as a "free press" without the influence of money, we are in big trouble.

I am not commenting on Mr. Menendez's appropriateness for running again for the Senate, but if every time his name is mentioned, we hear the bells of "do you know what he did?" we are diminishing our political process.  I get it that "if it bleeds it leads," but there was no blood in Mr. Menendez's pre-announcement.  Why did NPR or any other medium feel it needed to make some?
 

Monday, April 2, 2018

PLANNED PARENTHOOD VS NRA?

by Ruth A. Sheets

OK, It's happened, one of the most ridiculous things I have read concerning the NRA, probably, ever.  The article, "Planned Parenthood's Absolutism"  came from thefederalist.com, a Conservative website.  The author, Michael Graham compared Planned Parenthood with the NRA as though they were politically equivalent.  He called Planned Parenthood  "the NRA of the Democratic Party, only worse."  He says this proves you don't need a gun to be a bully, implying Planned Parenthood bullies Democratic candidates more than NRA does Republicans.  Ha! 

So, Are these organizations actually comparable?  Well, maybe.  They are both organizations.  Both have lobbyists.  Both have political goals.  Both have  many supporters.  Both claim to stand for people's rights.  Both have . . . I can't think of anything else they have in common.

The NRA is predominantly a male organization that celebrates a perceived macho way of relating to the world involving guns, lots of them, particularly for white men.  The Second Amendment supposedly gives anyone in America the right to "keep and bear arms."  In their eyes, everyone should, well, maybe not exactly everyone.  

Planned Parenthood is predominantly a women's group whose purpose is to assist with women's reproductive health and family planning in all its manifestations.  Alas, women's rights must be implied here, as male-dominated legislatures just couldn't bear to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  The Action Fund branch of their organization (very much separate), does work to see that women actually do get to have some reproductive rights, choice.

The article claims each group is inextricably tied to a particular party.  Then, each party can only do what the organization wants it to do or lose its support.  I suspect Republicans who have found Planned Parenthood services invaluable and Democratic gun owners might quibble a bit with this assessment, but there is some truth here.

It seems to me there is a deep something more that sets these organizations apart.  That is, their purpose or mission.  The NRA promotes guns, almost any gun.  It tries to stop legislation that would in any way limit gun ownership.  Its phrase of note, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  However, the NRA member's life will be only tangentially effected if he can't have a particular gun.  There will always be other guns and other opportunities for shooting.  Even if the gun-owner is careful, just having the gun can put himself and others at risk since a gun is designed as an instrument of death.

Planned Parenthood is not a club with members who share an interest like guns.  It is a collection of like-minded health care providers and their supporters who help families navigate the challenges of family planning.  Seeking Planned Parenthood for help could be a life and death occasion.  Life will be different in nearly immeasurable ways based on the choices the woman makes with the help of the people supporting her.  The woman's choice will possibly affect her family, but few beyond that will feel in any real way the impact of the decision.  It is and ought to be private.

But, not to many Conservatives, particularly members of some religions, women are baby makers.  They have no say in planning their family as even birth control is not "God's will."  When women do get pregnant, they must stay pregnant despite the impact on their health, the family's economy, or any other critical factor.  "Too bad.  God must have wanted you pregnant and if your life is at risk, Oh well, that's just what it is to be a woman."  What utter nonsense!

I am trying to see how anything NRA stands for comes even close to having such an impact.  For most religious people, guns are barely relevant.  They kill, but that's just because some people are mentally ill and  . . .  Yet the NRA men and their token women have more power than Planned Parenthood will probably ever have in influencing legislators.  Why, they have a candidate report card and make sure the media regularly broadcasts the candidates' grades.

I suspect Mr. Graham was trying to get his readers, Conservative white men to see their gun "cause" as justifiable because it involves their rights.  He wants them to think of Planned Parenthood as nothing more than a political lobby that pushes women into abortions they don't want and shouldn't be able to have anyway.  Why this was worth writing is unclear.  But, it's another way to attempt to dismiss the work of Planned Parenthood as unnecessary, another special interest group that tosses its money around.  The NRA cause is about securing Constitutional rights.  Planned Parenthood is about denying rights to the unborn.  Wow!  That's pretty powerful.  Except,  perhaps, this is just another guy who knows nothing of women.  As usual, he is trying to equate a woman's need with a man's want and justify it in the only way he can.  He sets up a caring service organization next to a wealthy, self-serving group of male gun owners, makes political spending comparisons, and calls its actions worse.  

Planned Parenthood leaves a legacy of women they serve having control in their lives.  NRA leaves a legacy of mass shootings, suicides, accidental deaths, and murders by some people who have no business having access to guns.  Hmmm!  I wonder . . . .