This is What "Democracy" Looks Like

So, like many of you, I said lots of words when I heard about Joe (fun fact - Stalin was also a Joe - coincidence??? I kid, I kid) Lieberman playing the role of Vito Corleone in this health care reform saga. I used phrases comedians would find offensive. I think I even made up a few new profanities. What can I say, I have many talents. Anyway, point being, the Obama administration pushed generally-spineless Harry Reid to kowtow (Obama kowtows like it's going out of style) to Lieberman and scrap the Medicare buy-in from the bill, which was already a substitute for the public option, which was a self-imposed compromise from Obama (love that hope, baby) away from a broader push for universal coverage or at least some regional-based private system that could maximize economies of scale and competition to get us the best coverage for the most people at the lowest cost. None of this is exactly shocking. Joe Lieberman is, well, a lot of words I won't write here. But none of them are good. And Obama is doing what I thought he would all along, except people seem to be more content with letting him do so than I had hoped. But this is bigger than health care. What the Lieberman affair speaks to is, very simply, the heart of democracy in America today.

What do I mean by that? Simple. Lieberman was always going to push hard against any progressive health care reform. Not just because he's an ass - he is. Not just because he despises the left and wants to stick it to them - he does. Not because his soul is composed of arsenic and sulfuric acid - it is. (Okay...you got me...it isn't. Or I should say, I don't know that it isn't. Prove me wrong!) Take all of that away. You could argue against any of those points with some success. There's still one that is far more important than the others - unless Lieberman is, of course, the earthly version of El Diablo, which might be slightly worse. (Again, I kid. But seriously...can you prove he's not? Provide me the proof!) Joe Lieberman runs for office. In order to run for office, Joe Lieberman needs to get loot. Lots of it. It cost almost $6 million to win a Senate seat in 2008. The amount of TV ads, and the rising price of said ads, is part of the reason spending has increased. You know, the 7 ads you see over the course of one episode of Lost in October/November telling you candidate John Smith is actually a terrorist, kills babies himself, or will drop nuclear weapons on every country whose leaders so much as looks at him the wrong way. Ah, nostalgia.

So, Joe Lieberman needs to raise a lot of money in Connecticut. He probably doesn't have to raise that much most of the time, though. There is lots of research looking at entrenchment...so, once you get elected, you're much more likely to stay in office. Not only that, but Lieberman hasn't really faced too many serious challengers. Ned Lamont was, of course, an exception, and forced Lieberman to run as an independent/de-facto Republican to win his current term. But, he wants to have the money on hand because it's always good to have money on hand in politics. He wants to obliterate whoever his competition is with TV ads. He wants to outspend his rivals by a lot just to make sure he stays in office. So, he wants lots of money, both hard (from individuals) and soft (from PACs, etc.). Thus, he, like many of his colleagues in Congress, spend a hell of a lot of time fundraising, as opposed to, I don't know, governance. You can't raise millions of dollars that quickly, especially because their are limits on how much donors can give. Thus, it takes time to build up your treasure chest.

Now, who does Joe Lieberman get money from? A lot of sources. But he gets a lot from the health care industry. This includes pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association, etc. In other words, organizations that stand to lose a lot if any large-scale health care reform gets through. Lieberman gets a decent amount of money from them. Over his career, he ranks 10th among sitting senators in terms of industry contributions. This amounts to over $1 million - he ranked second in the Senate in contributions from the health insurance industry during his re-election campaign in 2006. Connecticut also happens to be home to a lot of big health insurance companies. Over 22,000 jobs in the state are directly in the health insurance industry. This is obviously problematic. This doesn't account for the loopholes, either. One way Congressional leaders get around campaign finance rules is by having the industry pay their spouses a lot of money through jobs and speaking gigs. Now, if they are highly qualified people for these positions, I get it. If they're not, you're basically filtering money to the candidate through a huge loophole. Lieberman has been getting slammed about this lately, as his wife pockets quite a lot of money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries...several hundred thousand/year for, essentially, photo-ops. And that's after they actually got cleaner about it. So, yeah, lots of money. And the results seem to follow eerily well. Lieberman's flip flop on the Medicare buy-in came after the insurance industry slammed it.

Some argue that Lieberman's about-face has more to do with ideology - Lieberman did this to oppose the progressive left, something his comments do suggest. Maybe. But what's he going to say? The guys who bankroll me decided it wasn't good, so I did their bidding? At least the anti-liberal argument wins him some points among conservative democrats and Republicans. The admission of following the money could piss everyone off.

So, yeah, let's put the pitchforks down for a second and stop frothing about Lieberman. I hate his guts more than most of you. But his killing the already-compromised Medicare buy-in was almost a given. It's the last fact that's really got me boiling. It was almost a given. The industry owns him. He directly benefits from their avoiding any real competition (since, as I've noted before, health insurance companies resemble oligopolies in America) through universal coverage, regional plans, a public option, or even a Medicare buy-in. Good business for them is good business for him. He's not alone. This industry spends a lot of money in lobbying Congressional leaders, both legally, and through the loopholes. It doesn't matter that most Americans want real reform - too many of their leaders get their marching orders from the health insurance companies. This is the real story in the Lieberman affair.

It extends well beyond health care, obviously. Look at any major industry in the United States and the amount of money they spend lobbying Congressional leaders. It is disgusting. Now, they like to give money to everyone (as it would be politically stupid to only give to one party), so they sometimes do donate to leaders who won't vote their cause. However, a lot do. The revolving door makes it even worse, as people move regularly from the industry, to regulating the industry, to the industry. Something just stinks here. And, of course, these companies have huge swaths of money, which make it hard for people to challenge them in the competition for Congress.

This isn't a left/right issue. It isn't even an anti-corporation issue. It's a democracy issue. If we want to have a strong democracy, the fact that Washington is owned by, and serves, corporations and industries, is a real problem. Look, it's in these companies' interests to lobby. It only makes sense for them to do so. The issue is, we don't check them on it. What we get are policies that are often bad for the majority of Americans, bad for the country in the long-run, but good for industries. We know they're problematic before they even get implemented, but they happen, anyway. Health care is a good example. We badly need to slow down the growth of health care spending, for the sake of our economy in the long-run. However, to do so, we need to implement some major overhauls of the system. Are we doing that? No. In fact, some of the best ways to lower costs in the long-run, like the public option, have already been dropped from the bill.

We can debate the specifics about many of these issues all day and night. And, so long as its on the actual facts, that's a good thing. But when the debate gets hijacked by companies, we have a serious problem, for both liberals and conservatives, and those of us who refuse to be categorized as either of those. When our government no longer works for us, but rather for companies who do not necessarily share our long-term interests, we need to bum rush the show. I don't even blame the industries themselves - it's in their interests to do this. The problem is when we let this kind of thing happen.

Democracy is a very precious thing. It came with a lot of blood, a lot of struggle, and a lot of pain. It is not something we can ever take for granted. The age of Obama is, I think, a scary time, though not because he's a Kenyan Muslim baby-killing gay-loving socialist-capitalist terrorist. It's about issues like democracy itself. I fear that people are becoming complacent, just because he's in power (at least on the left). Contrary to what he says, he is just a politician. His game is to stay in power, just like Joe Lieberman and others. Just because he's in power and there are Democratic majorities in Congress does not mean things are going to go well.

If you haven't seen it, there was a fantastic documentary on this past weekend, The People Speak, which should remind everyone that the things we value the most are the things we must fight for the most, at all times. That means, even with this supposedly liberal administration, that doesn't mean things will change. We have to hold our leaders accountable at all times. The way health care reform has unraveled over the past few months is a prime example. It has become one concession after another. Many say, trust Obama, he's looking out for us on this, it'll be fine. I say, do you know anything about American history? Yes, there will obviously be differences between an Obama administration and a Bush administration (though fewer than you'd think), but this one problem, illustrated by the Lieberman affair, that Washington serves industry over the populace, will remain with us unless we are willing to confront it. It's bad news for all of us, too, from the left and the right. That sacred pledge made hundreds of years ago, to have a government for the people, by the people, is at stake. Obama isn't looking out for us, people. We are looking out for us. We cannot go silent about this, we cannot wait to see how things play out. We need to act in whatever ways we can. In Voices of a People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove give use examples of the power of both the big and little guy/gal who stood up for democracy, freedom, and justice, throughout American history. What has happened in health care reform is indicative of what has happened in a number of other issues, and shows just how fragile our democracy is. Today, democracy, it don't look so good in America. We mustn't wait for our leadership to turn the tide and bring us back to some utopian state. We must put pressure on them ourselves. The great advances in American history only came after great pressure and struggle from Americans who saw wrong and gave everything to right it. We must follow the footsteps of those who came before us, and fight for that democracy. Let's start with health care reform.

p.s. - this has little to do with partisanship. People on the right should be angry about this trend as much as those on the left. While I think Democrats are definitely better than today's brand of Republican, they take a lot of money and allow their corporate interests to override the interests of their constituents and their country a lot, too. A website which has provided a lot of information about who's paying who (although it gets harder when we get to the loopholes, like jobs for wives discussed above) is opensecrets, which is run by the Center for Responsive Politics. Check it out!

The Failure of the Federalist, No. 10

Despite our Founders' vision of independent powers exercising checks and balances to prevent a "tyranny of the majority," every branch of the federal government acted last month to cast its lot with torturers. But even though President Obama, Congress and the Court have united to hide evidence of high-level crime, Americans of conscience continue to resist, arguing that sweeping human rights abuses under the rug is a greater threat to national security than dealing with them openly and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

This Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Defense v. ACLU that the Defense Department could maintain secrecy over photos documenting pervasive torture. While disappointing, the decision was more or less inevitable in the wake of the Obama administration's latest reversal.

After deciding to release evidence of torture in wake of court orders requiring disclosure, the administration later caved to pressure from the intelligence community, and even went so far as to force out the official whose decision antagonized the CIA leadership. Lobbying Congress to secure an amendment to FOIA, the administration bent over backward to protect torturers and keep them from facing justice.

Executive secrecy is appalling enough in the abstract, and even worse in the context of a cover up hiding evidence of apparent war crimes and torture. Authorized by an act of a complacent Congress bowing to a disingenuous administration, the Defense Department acted last week to withhold evidence of its own misconduct, based on an illusory justification citing the safety of U.S. troops abroad. And, as it must under Justice Jackson's analysis in the seminal Steel Seizure cases, the Supreme Court acquiesced.

Every branch of the U.S. government—the Executive, the Congress, and now the Supreme Court—has shockingly acted to sweep evidence of war crimes under the rug. Their collusion is a profound betrayal of our nation's historical legacy, a setback for international human rights, and a devastating defeat for democratic transparency in the face of official misconduct.

But in a democracy, even collusion among every branch of our federal government does not end the story. Last week, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee released a forceful coalition letter I wrote on behalf of nearly 30 interfaith, civil rights, and peace and justice organizations around the country to "explain why transparency and robust accountability are a strategic national security imperative, and to expose the self-interest of voices counseling against accountability."

The letter criticized the "self-serving and internally inconsistent diatribe" of the CIA leadership, reiterating that "any incident of torture or kidnapping violated international law," and also that "detainee abuse...undermined several important national security interests."

First, by forcing detainees to make unreliable statements, coercive interrogation proved to be a poor vehicle for intelligence gathering. Second, torture played into the hands of our nation's enemies by facilitating their recruitment efforts. Finally, torture sapped the morale of junior intelligence agents, as well as the experienced interrogators who complained about torture policies. (citations omitted)

Our coalition went on to examine the impact of torture with impunity on several important groups of stakeholders: (a) the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence services, whose morale has been sapped by the protection of criminals among them; (b) our nation's international allies, "many of which have voiced concerns about detainee mistreatment"; (c) civil society voices supportive of U.S. military deployments in areas where our legitimacy is contested; (d) and the "millions of Americans from all walks of life, demographics, professions, backgrounds, and communities who are appropriately appalled by the CIA's abuses."

Beyond noting the interests of these groups, our letter also reframed a number of misconceptions pervading the issue of accountability for torture, which grows only more pressing with the revelation over the weekend of continuing torture under the Obama administration despite the repudiation of enhanced interrogation techniques.

First, responding to "the self-serving ruse that releasing the photos would undermine the safety of U.S. troops deployed abroad," our coalition argues that "any potential harm to our troops inheres in the criminal conduct depicted in the photos, not their potential disclosure." Moreover, "[t]he extent to which that conduct has undermined our broader national security only reinforces the imperative of prosecution."

Second, the letter reframes the procedural posture, noting that "failing to investigate those who conceived, planned, and orchestrated violations of international law does not reflect political neutrality. In fact, the current investigation, limited to some junior agents, reflects pre-judgment in favor of alleged torturers." (emphasis in original)

Ultimately, "the Department of Defense retains--and we request[ed] that [the President] exercise--the authority to declassify and release the photos." As we argued last week, "Our safety as a nation, as well as the legitimacy of our system of justice, the integrity of our intelligence services, and the strength of our international alliances all depend on [President Obama's] willingness to restore the rule of law by ensuring its equal application to all."

This is the latest among many tests - most of which he has, so far, unfortunately failed - that will demonstrate who the President is in fact. Will he serve as the beacon of hope in government that he pretended to be throughout last year's campaign, or like other politicians, did he merely pander to the public in order to pursue his personal ambitions?

This article was originally published by Huffington Post.

Fort Hood and U.S. Foreign Policy

I've been meaning to put some thoughts down about the shootings at Fort Hood for a minute, but just haven't gotten around to it yet. There has been plenty of typical sensationalist media coverage (best exemplified by the common "terrorists in America?" theme going around), along with some crazy racist nutjob stories (the "Muslim conspiracy theory" stuff, linking this all to the plot to infiltrate Congress through interns and the military through officers like Hasan - really insane stuff). I'm going to stay away from that stuff because, well, there's not really anything there. If you want to read about the Islamophobia that arose after the attack, check out this piece. Instead, let me talk about the one angle we haven't heard much about - how this tragedy is directly linked to U.S. foreign policy.

As we find out more information, we discover that Major Hasan had serious grievances with American foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unlike a lot of other people. Pretty legitimate beef, too...the unreal number of civilian casualties, the number of U.S. casualties, the manipulated WMD evidence, the occupations, the pliant governments, the sweet military contracts and business deals, the trampling on international laws/norms/institutions...lots of beef. The closer you follow things, the more clear it becomes that Hasan's act of violence was driven primarily by his rage at these issues. And, while his actions are deplorable and should be condemned, that doesn't get U.S. foreign policy off the hook. There are serious problems with what we've done and are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hasan's anger at the situation is not dissimilar from the anger millions around the world feel about the conflicts. Had he opted for civil disobedience instead of murder, he'd be like so many Americans, infuriated by the government's foreign policy.

In fact, Hasan provides us a domestic example of what we might be doing to Iraqis and Afghanis. He worked with vets returning from the wars, many with serious mental and physical injuries. Hasan apparently had a hard time dealing with the pain he saw them going through. He obviously opposed the wars, identified with the victims of the wars (both the soldiers he worked with, and the civilians with whom he probably identified with as Muslims), and, despite attempts to be discharged because of his concern about his difficulties serving a military whose actions he could not reconcile with his own beliefs, was about to be sent over to Afghanistan. In a simple sense, Hasan clearly snapped. Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) sure comes to mind.

Now, imagine a civilian in Afghanistan. You've seen countless neighbors, friends, and family members either killed or seriously injured in the continued war, possibly by NATO forces, bombing raids, or extremist elements running rampant in the country due to the lawlessness aided by Washington's support of an inept regime (and lack of financial backing to stabilize the country). You're in a worse place than Hasan. There is a pretty good chance you're on the verge of snapping, or just waiting for a chance to attack and kill somebody. There is countless psychological research on versions of prospect theory, social identity theory, and post-traumatic stress disorder that can be used to explain both Hasan's actions, as well as those of civilians stuck in horrific wars. Basically, if Hasan did what he did, what do you think the civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan are likely to do if they got a chance? This isn't some ideational thing...these violent outbursts are very specific to the context of the situation.

Thus, we could see Hasan as possibly a tamer version of what we might be producing abroad with policies that many inside and outside of America have serious qualms with. Um...shouldn't that be, I don't know, a pretty important angle for the press to cover on this story? It's all about foreign policy. You'd think it might even trigger some re-evaluation of our policies.

One other point...Hasan tried like hell to get out of the military. Some stories suggest he hired a lawyer to try to get discharged. His aunt says he offered to pay for his medical training in exchange for a discharge. He himself suggested the military allow Muslims to be conscientious objectors when America was fighting Muslims. No matter how you slice it, he had serious qualms and wanted out. Would you want a psychiatrist, who worked primarily with veterans who were dealing with serious physical and mental issues from the wars, to stay in such a position with his concerns? No way. Yet, they wouldn't discharge him. Why? I don't know, could it be our massive military footprint all over the globe? Over 750 bases in 39 countries (plus over 100 additional bases outside of the continental US, troops in 151 foreign countries, occupiers in two separate countries where we have major conflict still raging...yeah, we're probably slightly overstretched. And by slightly, I mean unbelievably. So much so that the Army can't really spare any soldier, including someone like Hasan. Again...direct link to our foreign policy. Are we stretched so thin that we're putting people in the field who really shouldn't be there?

Anyway, aside from the stories about the victims and the tragedy itself, it seems to me that these are really important issues that we should think about when reflecting on the Fort Hood shootings. The event has a very direct link to U.S. foreign policy, one that should be probed pretty deeply. This connection hasn't been looked at enough, but hopefully we can convince people it should be examined. It would be a way to really do justice to the memories of those who lost their lives in that tragic event, along with countless other innocents who have died in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(For a sharper analysis on Fort Hood, check out this FPIF article. For a discussion of Fort Hood and PTSD, check out this piece by the always-excellent Dahr Jamail and this NPR article)

"I'm for gay rights but ..."

So for the past few years I've been jousting with my family and loved ones around the issue of same sex marriage and repeatedly found my argument falling on deaf ears. In fact what I most often heard was, "I am for gay rights but..." and what would follow would immediately sweep away any indication of actual support for the union of two people from the same sex. As a service to myself and those with whom I will soon have this discussion with, I'll provide some statements and my rebuttals. Instead of taking our 45 minutes on spinning wheels, let's work and see and if we can cover some different ground.

1) "I'm for gay rights but ... you can't compare being Black to being gay."

I feel you, I understand that being Black is different than being gay, but did you realize even in that statement you're implying that we don't have Black gay folk? No really, this is the part of the conversation where you keep on throwing out "they" which you might as well then say "those people." I know you don't like me bringing that up, because for so long and so often within the dominant White culture of America Black folks are referred to as "they", "those people" and even recently "that one." It's really a process of othering, trying to make a distinction of who is "in" and should receive privileges and who is "out" (pun intended).

2) No, you're not getting it, I didn't choose to be Black and I can't hide being Black.

Touche, you're probably don't remember when you chose to be Black, if you ever did. In fact, since we're talking - heterosexual to heterosexual, I don't remember when I choose to be straight, but that's besides the point. The point is that being "Black" and being "gay", as we sociologists say are both "socially constructed". Yeah, fancy academic words but definitely important. By socially constructed I mean that we create the boundaries and meanings for these categories. There is a great film that breaks this down and books, but let's be real, you ain't gonna pick up a book or watch a movie in the middle of this blog post, so let me do what I can to break it down now. While we've come to think of meaning of Blackness as something that can't be changed, avoided, and pretty much is like gravity, we've forgotten that was created. In fact, the dominant images and tropes of "What is Black", weren't even our creation. Think about it, how many people who identify as Black, would say "my skin is actually the color of Black." Very few, in fact, we respond by saying things like "I'm brown, caramel, dark chocolate, etc." all descriptors that side-step an imposed moniker. Also have we forgotten that for so many years, the oppression of being Black and not having access to rights made many of our ancestors pass? Yeah, that's right, not all of us are "definitively Black" and certainly what it means to be Black has carried consequences.

3) That's my point, almost exactly, you can tell when someone is Black usually, but you never know if they're gay! Well unless they're really flamboyant or something.

Ah, I get it, if you are gay you don't have to "look or act gay" and if you don't act gay, you'll be fine in society. Yeah, that's called passing ... well actually more appropriately covering. See, as a Black folks, I really hope we think deeply about oppression and how oppressive it must be to not be able to show your love for someone else. If I walk outside and decide to kiss a strange woman in the middle of the street I won't get many strange glares (other than folks saying "Dumi's a wild cat") but if I love someone of the same gender and walk arm-in-arm with them down the street I'm likely to get screw faces down the block. As a result, we, heterosexual folks often say stuff like, "I don't care what you do behind closed doors but I don't want to see it." Interesting... we live in a society were the physical expression of romantic love between people is common, but almost completely forbidden for certain groups. In order to be one's self we ask people not to express themselves and "pass" or "cover" for straight. That doesn't sound very equal or liberated to me. Can you imagine a community where love was the norm and hate was not what we used to regulate others behaviors? (that's rhetorical)

4) Okay, I get that, but doesn't it piss you off when they use the Civil Rights Movement for their movement?

Once again, what's up with the us and them type of thinking. Gay Black folks have been around for a long time, to act as if they are not us is to deny part of ourselves. In fact, the most prominent voice and architect of the Civil Rights Movement was Martin Luther King Jr. His work centered on non-violence which he derived from Gandhi but he learned from Bayard Rustin who was a queer Black man. Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Queer Black folks have been at the center of our movement for rights as well as our cultural and social uplift, why try to write them out of history now? Or rather why not acknowledge the central role they've played in the collective Black struggle which should include lgbtq brothers and sisters? We can only say gay folks are piggy-backing on the civil rights movement if we don't acknowledge the contribution of gay folks to the movement. Now has the equal rights movement around sexuality taken on some tropes that came along during the Civil Rights movement, absolutely! But all subsequent movements do that, in fact, a marker of a successful social movement is an adoption of some its techniques. But let's not forget what the Civil Rights Movement was about! It was fighting to make the 14th and 15th amendments real!!! Those amendments legally gave Black folks equal civil rights but when we looked at how Black people were treated and what they could do, it is seen that it's unequal. I think we can take a similar look at the Gay Rights movement which is simply fighting for the same rights that heterosexuals have, be it marriage, adequate healthcare, or to live freely in society.

5) I hear what you're saying but God made "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve"! We're a Christian country and marriage is a bond before God between man and woman.

Ah, you got me with that one, I didn't realize a rhyme could break down an entire situation. Oh wait, no it can't. There is an entrenched myth in this country that marriage is exclusively a religious, often insinuated Christian, practice that the government sanctions. Not true at all, anthropologists have long observed and discussed marriage as beyond Christian and beyond the sanctioning of the state. It is true here that many associate the two, but that does not seem logical that it must also be seen as such. First, the mythos of the United States as Chrisitian nation is based on ignoring that colonies were founded out of the fleeing of religious oppression. How ironic is it that religion would then become the basis for oppression in 2009 and 1619 when non-Christian Africans arrived in captivity and quickly were proclaimed subhuman and savage. If you are going to invoke the credo of a nation, then I'd suggest you invoke the ones of equality and diversity, which means you are welcome to have your beliefs but your beliefs should not be the basis for impinging on other's rights.

Now I know by this point you likely still don't agree with me, but I do want you to see there is validity to a discussion about gay rights and the civil rights or more importantly gay rights as civil and human rights! I do want you to see that all to often we neglect and relegate a part of our people to inhumane and unjustified treatments through our active and passive condoning of covering. I do want us all to think about what MLK meant when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I do want us to really grapple with the fact that if Huey Newton in the 1970s could see the connection, we should be able to see it in 2009. I wrote this because I worry about a people's ability to turn a blind eye to injustice in a world and nation that often has suggested the unjust is just the way it should be. For a people who have fought for existence and rights, it should only be natural to continue that fight with our brothers and sisters.

***this piece is designed to be a primer and conversation starter. there are many more things to say, but wanted to get the ball rolling and get some basic ideas out there***

On America's Moral Barometers...

So, Plaxico Burress just got a 2-year jail sentence for carrying a licensed gun into a nightclub and shooting himself in the leg, but nobody else. Michael Vick just got reinstated to the NFL after serving 2 years in jail for his role in financing a dog-fighting racket. In both cases, lots of people have voiced outrage as to the supposed leniency in their cases. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong (though I really think Burress' sentence is kind of crazy), nor am I condoning their actions...but do these people follow the news????


I mean, seriously, is Michael Vick the guy we need to go after? I get it, he played a part in something horrible, especially if you are a dog-lover (I'm indifferent, but can sympathize), but understand that the harm he inflicted, while obviously bad, was limited...and he paid his dues by going to jail and losing his money. Same will happen to Plax, whose football career is essentially over - 2 years in jail for a wide receiver at Burress' age means nobody will sign him when he's out. Barry Bonds, the home-run king, has essentially been blacklisted by Major League Baseball, and the players in general have come under fire for their use of steroids, but nobody is talking about the owners who looked the other way in the 1990s when juice-induced homers were filling the seats and their pockets. Michael Phelps, Olympic hero (and University of Michigan grad - go Blue!), attracted so much criticism for his admission that he had smoked marijuana in the past.

I'm not sure what the hell happened to America, but since when were sports athletes our moral barometers? Seriously. I'm not condoning any of the actions mentioned above, but give me a break. I'd say, at the very least, we should hold our leaders more accountable than the guys we watch throw spirals, right? I get the outrage some people felt when Vick was let back into the league, but, again, he actually paid for his crimes. How many of our leaders have done no such thing? How many people in far more important positions involved in far more serious matters have gotten away with murder? Literally? Yet, America directs more of its outrage at NFL stars doing dumb and horrible things than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR - a former Halliburton subsidiary), who got some sweet contracts from the US government (and who says having friends in high positions, like Dick Cheney, et. al., doesn't pay?) in Iraq, have misused a lot of the money, and most importantly, may have done such a shoddy job on electrical wiring that that this work killed 16 US soldiers due to electrocution this past year. In some of the cases, the Pentagon already announced no criminal charges will be filed. Well, of course not. Paying a company $80 million to wire facilities in Iraq, and then have a number of US soldiers die because they were electrocuted in showers in those facilities, doesn't seem to be a serious matter at all. Totally not linked, you know, wiring and multiple electrocution deaths in showers. Now, if you really want to talk about morality, let me tell you about Michael Vick...

Speculation is that Burress got a pretty harsh sentence because Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make an example out of him. Okay. So, let me see if I got this right. You want to make an example out of somebody for doing something bad. In New York city. Um...do you know Wall Street is in the area? Because, while Plax is a fool for carrying a gun into a club, and he definitely could have potentially done a lot of harm, he actually only shot himself, whereas our "great" business minds on Wall Street ran amuck and broke our economy with their recklessness, causing a hell of a lot of real harm to countless Americans. What some of them did was totally criminal. So...lets throw the book at Plax instead!

How many laws did the Bush administration break? It seems like we're still getting stories every few weeks about something insane and criminal they did to this day. What are the consequences? None, basically, because they were only the leaders of our country. John Yoo teaches at Berkeley. Dick Cheney seems ready for his own prime time television show. Alberto Gonzalez still can't remember a damn thing and will be teaching political science courses (why, god, why?) at Texas Tech. George W. Bush is putting together a think tank (no, that's not a joke). None of them are in jail. None of them went to trial to go to jail. And I doubt any of them will. While this is killing some progressives across the country (and people in general around the world), the general mood in America is, we shouldn't go after these guys. Awesome. We've got bigger fish to fry. Athletes. Rappers. Not guys who lie to Congress in sworn testimony - he totally doesn't deserve to go to jail.

Over time, it seems like the people we should be holding up to higher moral and civic standards in our country are acting in absolutely appalling ways. And, most importantly, they're getting away with it. Rachel Maddow shouldn't be one of the only people reporting on "the Family" at the C St. House, for instance, an institution that includes Congressional leaders who use taxpayer money to learn about coercion from some of the worst dictators around. Why hasn't there been wider coverage of Bobby Jindal using taxpayer dollars to fly to churches all over Louisiana to give communities checks with his name on it that came from the Obama stimulus bill that Jindal so openly deplored? How about really leaning heavily on Governor Sanford for being completely out of touch with everyone while he went down to Argentina to visit his mistress? Forget the affair, a governor of the state can't just leave town (and country) without telling anyone. By the way, he used taxpayer dollars for several of those trips before, and lots of taxpayer dollars in other inappropriate ways. Maybe he will be impeached (there seems to be some movement towards it), but political leaders sure seem to get away with a lot, so I'll believe he's held accountable when I see it. Now, if he was Michael Phelps, different story...

Charles Barkley famously quipped years ago that he wasn't a role model. Well, I think whether they want to be or not, athletes (and lots of other people in the public limelight, like musicians, actors, writers, etc.) have no choice but to be role models. That means acting responsibly, and paying the price when they don't. Oftentimes, they do get away with a lot. But sometimes they don't. On the other hand, there is no doubt our political, civic, and business leaders should be role models, far more than athletes, etc.. They are engaged in far more serious issues than entertaining us. Somewhere along the line, though, we shifted our moral barometers. Guys like Dick Cheney became untouchable, but guys like Barry Bonds became lightning rods for debates about "what was wrong in America." Well, I think the fact that the discussion has moved to that level might begin to tell us what is wrong in America.

Note: I realize I went after a lot of Republicans here...that's just because its easier, given the insane number of ridiculous scandals they've been involved with, but please don't think my point here is a partisan one. It's about the insanity of holding athletes, entertainers, etc., up to be the moral barometers of this country, while giving our actual leaders, in politics, in business, in civic life, a much easier pass.