Two summers ago, I was working with a landscaping company in Jackson, New Jersey, a few miles from the shore. Being in the sun for ten hours a day had turned my skin probably about as brown as it can get. As one may or may not assume, most of my coworkers were from central America, mostly Mexico. They were a great group of guys who loved to joke around and only knew three words of English: fuck, shit, and pussy. On a pretty typical day of work (ninety degrees in the shade), a few of us were driving from one spot to another the way we usually did, which was sitting in the back of a pickup with our equipment. This is, of course, illegal in the state of New Jersey, and we got pulled over. The officer opened up the tailgate and said, "Let's go, fellas. I need to see some papers." While my coworkers went to the cab of the truck and got their working papers, I stayed in the bed and said to the officer, "I'm actually a citizen, sir." He closed his eyes, nodded, motioned for me to get out, and said, "Yeah, ok bud. Let's go." He didn't believe me. I said to him in my completely accent-free voice, "Sir, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I don't have working papers. I'm a citizen and I was born here." It wasn't until I produced my driver's license that the officer realized that I was telling the truth. He was clearly embarrassed, and some of my coworkers were already giggling at him. As he gathered all of our documents, we could tell the officer was still suspicious of me. He looked at me and said, "You ok, pal? You got a far-off look in your eye. You're not gonna run on me, are you?" Completely taken aback, I said, "again, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I have absolutely no reason to run." He probably thought I had a warrant. He wasn't trying to help me out by letting me admit to something before he found out, he was baiting me into saying something incriminating. He was flustered and probably a little surprised when he found out I had a clean record. When her returned from his squad car, he of course tried to make nice and said I "looked much better now." I didn't buy it and I let him know as much. From that day on, my coworkers called me "mike the mexican gringo."
In light of recent events, not a terribly dramatic story. But it was my first up-close and personal encounter with what is commonly referred to as a "bad cop." This and stories like it are just tiny windows into the precarious intersection of race and justice in America. Historically, law enforcement and minority groups don't have a very strong track record of working well together, especially not for long periods of time. Add to that several crippling cycles of poverty and crime in American communities that are most often in contact with law enforcement. Mix in some very, very bad cops doing very, very bad things and the technology to record it all in high definition, and you have yourself the makings of a nice little shitstorm. Plenty of other things are at play, but those are the ones that I see as the long-term issues that have been swept under the rug for about a hundred years too long. It may sound dramatic, but I think what we are experiencing is one of those times in our national history when we will be able to either look back and say, "it may not have been perfect, but the right things were addressed and acted upon," or "I wish we had done something about that earlier, because now its ten times worse."
I don't know that I totally agree with the "police forces should look like the communities they police" idea. If we're going to make racial bias a non-factor in policing, it shouldn't play a roll in deciding who gets to be a police officer. What matters more is that police understand the communities they protect, because I think it's clear that too many of them don't. As someone who has grown up in the woods, I can't speak very authoritatively about inner-city culture. However, I am familiar with the hypermasculinity and the need to exert control over people in a very basic way that are facts of life in most American cities. In "urban" areas, gangs and groups like gangs occupy most of the time and resources of police forces, so police are best trained to deal with those sorts of people. Tactics for dealing with gangs and tactics for dealing with someone selling cigarettes illegally are obviously different. But when you've been primarily trained to deal with what I will call domestic terrorists, lines blur. It's in the situations where that kind of force is not needed that the cops lacking in self-control tend to outshine those who are not. Policemen are human beings, and in stressful situations, reasoning skills give way to primal fears and deeply entrenched biases. Split second decisions are made, bang bang, an innocent person dies.
Poverty is of course a part of all of this. We all know the statistical economic disparities between white Americans and minority groups, and the link between poverty and crime is a real one. As people slip further into poverty, they are more likely to commit crimes (please note: for those of us who know where our next meal is coming from, it's very easy to say "just obey laws and police won't bother you"). The various factors making American prisons extremely profitable makes judges just a smidge more likely to dish out unreasonable sentences. This takes fathers and sons out of communities that need them and puts them into a system that makes them violent. They return from prison angry, hardened, and more likely to commit crimes. They commit another crime, they go back to jail. What's more, the young people in these communities look up to these criminals because they don't back down to cops, which fosters a culture of disobedience that terrifies "law and order" politicians. That's how the "American System" has, perhaps without anyone really realizing it, made crime in inner cities profitable. It has incentivized cyclical incarceration, and that is something that needs to be reformed YESTERDAY if we're even going to pretend that preventing crime is more important than making money.
It goes without saying that bad cops constitute a fraction of all cops. I hope we all understand that that fact doesn't dispense us from the need to root out bad cops, or distracts us from the fact that just one bad cop can do a boatload of damage. But I digress. One of the most important things we can take away from the last several weeks is that bad cops have been slow to realize that almost everyone under their jurisdiction owns a phone that can take video. It's not impossible, but it's pretty darn difficult to take a video out of context. It's right there in front of you. A person on the ground without a gun being shot by a person with a gun. I have a hard time believing that there is a police force in the world which, if it were asked publicly, would tell you that killing an unarmed and/or subdued person is the correct course of action in virtually any situation. Of course the American judicial system moves about as slow as it possibly can without stopping on these matters, so the question of whether or not videos like the ones seen in Baton Rouge will be admissible court is probably in question. Which is of course complete fucking nonsense, but laws are laws, even the stupid ones. However, these types of occurrences have to make even the most ardent "blue lives matter" folks wonder: exactly can police officers NOT do without even being indicted? If the answer isn't shooting a defenseless man in the head point-blank, I can honestly say I don't know what is.
I don't think anyone can say within reason that racism is not a part of America, and to say that racial bias plays no part in the American justice system is nonsense, to put it politely. It is an unfortunate part of our culture, and I would say that ignoring it is large part of our culture as well. We all want to think that since the important pieces of paper say that discrimination is illegal, it doesn't happen, and it certainly can't be systemic in scale. Whether we want it to be or not, it is an indelible part of our national conscience. It is the stain that will never, ever wash away. What is white privilege, you ask? It's the privilege of knowing that entire generations of your family were never owned by other Americans. If your country had to fight a war in order to change that, I suspect you'd have some mixed feelings about the desire to make things like the good ol' days. I can only speak for what I have seen. My sisters and I grew up in an relatively diverse place, and having preconceived notions about people based on their race was simply not part of our upbringing. I don't think any of us really quite understand it, even to this day. What I have seen, however, is that it is still an integral part of many of my peers' childhoods. It's worth noting that that day a few summers ago wasn't the first time I had been called Mexican: in high school, some of my cheekier classmates called me "The Mexican," which was of course the pinnacle of humor in a lilly-white catholic school.
I suppose the best-case scenario that I see from this crap going forward is that we make it our solemn duty to make sure prejudice and contrived biases are not a part of our childrens' world. I hope they see these events one day and they know that they are the worst that we have to offer as a species. I hope that they see these events and say, "Why would someone do that? It doesn't make any sense." Or better yet, "I've never seen something like that." For me, it has a become a question of national maturity. It's easy enough to say "black/blue/all lives matter," but it requires uncommon determination and (gasp) trust in one another to make those words something other than a post-tragedy battle cry. In a place where individuality and personal accountability are preached, we can't push aside our responsibility to make our childrens' lives more just. Because I promise you they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of our foot-dragging. They will be the ones who will have to clean up our mess when we were well within our means to clean it up ourselves. And if that doesn't motivate us to be better every single day and not just for a few days after a national outrage, I don't think anything will.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
Brexit
I don't pretend to be an expert on what the fudge is going on in Britain right now, but from what I've been hearing through my trusty source on anything involving European news (the BBC), I'm both surprised and a bit troubled by the decision handed down by our friends across the pond today. Most of what I've heard from "leavers" is pretty standard conservative stuff: we want to be free to operate our economy and govern without being under the thumb of the EU. Understandable.
HOWEVER. The not-so-suble undertone of what I've heard speaks to some eyebrow-raising lines of thought. A common thread is this tired idea that foreign economic influence and even (gasp) immigration are bad for a country's economy. The only way those two things are bad is if the folks pushing the buttons don't want to make potentially risky adaptations to their business or to the nation's social structure. In my little brain, saying foreign business shouldn't be allowed to influence the British economy because it could "hurt British businesses" is akin to saying no one should ever exercise because they might pull a muscle. If anyone really wants to subscribe to a market economy and make it "effective," competition is a good thing - even if it comes from another country.
And as for immigration, I speak from experience when I say migrant workers generally work their asses off. If a terrorist wants to do bad shit in your neighborhood, not allowing him or her to become a citizen WILL NOT STOP THEM great glad we cleared that up.
Bottom line: economic and social isolationism covered in a thin layer of nationalism went south pretty darn fast the last time Europe gave it a shot (see: WWII). The panic will wear off soon enough, but this trend towards fearmongering and short-sightedness in Europe is unsettling. For me, the EU is a recognition of how interpedentent European nations are in virtually every way, and I hope the rest of Europe has the balls to keep it together and see past this.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Orlando
That's right, folks. We find ourselves once again at the foot of the giant, steaming mountain of horseshit that is violence against innocent, unarmed people. Will it slam the wedge of mistrust even deeper between us? Almost certainly. Will sensible, elevated and honest discussions about the proper course of action to prevent things like this capture our national attention for a millisecond? Unlikely. Will politicians use it to convert greif and sorrow for the victims into fuel for their bullshit-spewing campaigns? I'd imagine so. The prospects for a productive reaction to fifty peoples' deaths that properly honors their memories are not good. The fact that most if not all of the people killed were homosexual makes things vastly more complicated, because this is America and gay people are and always have been looked at as second-class citizens here. You can bet your sweet behind that there will be plenty of right-wing "Christian" assholes awkwardly applauding the actions of a man who (from what has been gathered by the news folks thus far) aligned himself with Islamic extremist groups. Gay people have the singular pleasure of being aggresively hated by most major faiths and social ideologies in America. I suspect there are very few places where they feel completely safe, and even fewer after today. I won't get into the psychological implications of homophobia, because it is not my field. I can only speak for what I see and hear from "normal" people about their feelings towards gay people, which usually involves a giant scoop of hypocrisy and at least a dash of latent homosexuality.
I guess it is fair to start by saying that Muslims are no longer "coming" to America because they're already here. Fun Fact: Henry Ford, the most American of Americans, was born in a city called Dearborn, Michigan. A few years ago, Dearborn became the largest city in the country to have a majority of Arab-Americans as part of its city council. That's right: four of the people running Henry Ford's home town are of Arab decent, and two of them are Shiite Muslims. In fact, 40% of Dearborn's 100,000 residents are of Arab decent. Go head and google "Dearborn, Michigan." The second suggested search is "dearborn michigan sharia law." Muslims: they are here, they are pretty normal, and a lot of Americans think they want all women to wear burquas. This bastard who shot up a club full of unarmed people was confused, angry and scared, in no particular order. Those attributes were the driving forces in his life, perhaps followed distantly by Islam. He aligned himself with the Islamic State because they are some hardcore evil pieces of shit who have achieved what he really wanted, which was international attention. If you want to understand Islam, open a Koran and see how many times you read the word "compassion" before you see a word even alluding to violence. We are dealing with a vocal, angry minority who are counting on our pedjudices for their survival. That's it.
As easy as it can be to blame "The Media" for violence like this, I honestly can't bring myself to do so. To my knowledge, no one has ever been forced to watch Fox News or CNN or The 700 Club against their will. My hippy heart hurts to say so, but it's a shallow argument. Fox will dive right into the Islamaphobic, homophobic cesspool created by this event and wallow in it until it finally dries up and they are forced to move to another. As I know the sun will rise tomorrow, I know that is going to happen. HOWEVER. Fox would not spend every moment of their "news" coverage pushing their warped take on reality if they didn't know that there a whole bunch of people who will eat that shit right up. This includes people who actually agree with them and those who can't seem to look away from the TV (because they think Fox is doing the work of satan). Fox doesn't care. It's a dirty, cheap, soulless way to go about making a buck. If there exists any moral obligation to reach for something higher than profits and ratings, Fox and every other major media outlet ignores it. But then whose fault is it?! Yours, mine and everybody's. Every time we turn on the TV, or open a magazine, or read an online article, we cast a vote for what we want to immerse our minds in. I don't think we've collectively accepted our responsibility to interact peacefully and respectfully with each other, and blaming media outlets for taking advantage of that just means we don't want that kind of responsibility. But that's just my take on that.
I am not gay. I don't do nightclubs. I sort of abhor city life in general. I do not assume so, but I would wager that I don't have a whole lot in common with most of the people who died in Orlando yesterday. Yet somehow I manage to keep myself from shooting them. Or even contemplate shooting them. Or even having any discernable urge to harm them. I don't pretend to know what it's like to be homosexual in the United States, but I know what it is like to feel hated and completely powerless for reasons I cannot control, which I suppose on some level is similar. Conversely, I don't pretend to know what it's like to have experienced an environment that would condition me to hate people for any reason, let alone ones that don't really affect me. For terrorists, we all threaten their way of life simply by living. We are all combatants in wars that they have created in their minds, and the only way to make their war real is to harm us. That is a difficult weight to carry regardless of how we feel about it. All that we, the sensible inhabitants of earth must do to stop this nonsense from happening again is this: don't shoot each other. Time will wash away the blood and the tears, and the hatred too. Trust me on that. It's just going to take a lot of two things most of us don't have a ton of: patience and self-control.
I guess it is fair to start by saying that Muslims are no longer "coming" to America because they're already here. Fun Fact: Henry Ford, the most American of Americans, was born in a city called Dearborn, Michigan. A few years ago, Dearborn became the largest city in the country to have a majority of Arab-Americans as part of its city council. That's right: four of the people running Henry Ford's home town are of Arab decent, and two of them are Shiite Muslims. In fact, 40% of Dearborn's 100,000 residents are of Arab decent. Go head and google "Dearborn, Michigan." The second suggested search is "dearborn michigan sharia law." Muslims: they are here, they are pretty normal, and a lot of Americans think they want all women to wear burquas. This bastard who shot up a club full of unarmed people was confused, angry and scared, in no particular order. Those attributes were the driving forces in his life, perhaps followed distantly by Islam. He aligned himself with the Islamic State because they are some hardcore evil pieces of shit who have achieved what he really wanted, which was international attention. If you want to understand Islam, open a Koran and see how many times you read the word "compassion" before you see a word even alluding to violence. We are dealing with a vocal, angry minority who are counting on our pedjudices for their survival. That's it.
As easy as it can be to blame "The Media" for violence like this, I honestly can't bring myself to do so. To my knowledge, no one has ever been forced to watch Fox News or CNN or The 700 Club against their will. My hippy heart hurts to say so, but it's a shallow argument. Fox will dive right into the Islamaphobic, homophobic cesspool created by this event and wallow in it until it finally dries up and they are forced to move to another. As I know the sun will rise tomorrow, I know that is going to happen. HOWEVER. Fox would not spend every moment of their "news" coverage pushing their warped take on reality if they didn't know that there a whole bunch of people who will eat that shit right up. This includes people who actually agree with them and those who can't seem to look away from the TV (because they think Fox is doing the work of satan). Fox doesn't care. It's a dirty, cheap, soulless way to go about making a buck. If there exists any moral obligation to reach for something higher than profits and ratings, Fox and every other major media outlet ignores it. But then whose fault is it?! Yours, mine and everybody's. Every time we turn on the TV, or open a magazine, or read an online article, we cast a vote for what we want to immerse our minds in. I don't think we've collectively accepted our responsibility to interact peacefully and respectfully with each other, and blaming media outlets for taking advantage of that just means we don't want that kind of responsibility. But that's just my take on that.
I am not gay. I don't do nightclubs. I sort of abhor city life in general. I do not assume so, but I would wager that I don't have a whole lot in common with most of the people who died in Orlando yesterday. Yet somehow I manage to keep myself from shooting them. Or even contemplate shooting them. Or even having any discernable urge to harm them. I don't pretend to know what it's like to be homosexual in the United States, but I know what it is like to feel hated and completely powerless for reasons I cannot control, which I suppose on some level is similar. Conversely, I don't pretend to know what it's like to have experienced an environment that would condition me to hate people for any reason, let alone ones that don't really affect me. For terrorists, we all threaten their way of life simply by living. We are all combatants in wars that they have created in their minds, and the only way to make their war real is to harm us. That is a difficult weight to carry regardless of how we feel about it. All that we, the sensible inhabitants of earth must do to stop this nonsense from happening again is this: don't shoot each other. Time will wash away the blood and the tears, and the hatred too. Trust me on that. It's just going to take a lot of two things most of us don't have a ton of: patience and self-control.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Bernie Sanders
Oh, Bernie. He has finally descended from the giant hippy reservation that is Vermont to deliver us from the boiling cesspool that is our current political and social situation. I exaggerate, but I will admit that for me, Mr. Sanders has inspired a bit of hope in a realm in which I do not often find hope: politics. He seems to say and do things that speak to our better emotions. He uses words like "love" and "compassion" regularly when cutesy stuff like that loses airtime to words like "winning" and "greatness." He has more individual campaign donors than any American presidential candidate in history. He has a record stretching back to the 60's to back up his campaign goals. He's even got something resembling a sense of humor, which I was beginning to think was against some kind of unwritten rule in our government. So why is he still sort of a long shot? Why is every conservative and non-radical liberal pundit in America anxiously awaiting his campaign's collapse? Is his disheveled appearance and Brooklyn twang really that big of a turn-off? Is his insistence on debating issues and not whose spouse is uglier putting us to sleep? Or does he represent international values that a lot of Americans find offensive because they are not explicit "American" values? The answer, like most things, is more complicated than we'd like to admit. If nothing else, Bernie Sanders is one of the more interesting personalities that "personality politics" has ever conceived, and he has taken the American people to task on their pleas for more peaceful and understanding leadership.
Guns seem to be an issue where Mr. Sanders' position doesn't really connect with any particular group, including his supporters. Despite his liberal credentials, he's consistently refused to hold gun manufacturers accountable for violence perpetrated using their products. I have to agree with him on this. It's a matter of principles, which from what I have seen Mr. Sanders seems to know a thing or two about. If we are to blame gun makers for the terrible things people do with guns, it sets a very vague and easily construed precedent for other manufacturers. Do we blame soft drink companies for making us fat? Do we blame car companies for vehicular homicides? Sounds contrived or far-fetched, maybe even like a veiled attempt to push the NRA's agenda, but it's true. Bernie is from a rural state that takes its guns seriously, and gun control legislation has made virtually no progress there while Bernie has been in office. Yet Vermont has the lowest gun-related homicide rate in the country. I understand perfectly that this is a sensitive, emotional area for a lot of people, and as such hasty decisions are almost justified. But I take issue with the Clinton campaign turning the families of gun violence victims into a political sideshow. While I'm sure these families are participating willingly, they're being used. Saying Bernie is soft on guns and lumping him in with the NRA is a cheap way of sidestepping the principle upon which he bases his opinion. To say that he is pandering to gun owners is silly because (excuse my generalization) most American gun-lovers aren't going to vote for Bernie Sanders regardless of his position on guns. The NRA hates him, regardless of what Mrs. Clinton says. From what I've seen and heard, he feels the problems we've had involving guns is a cultural problem and that guns are a part of that culture, not the center of it. Makes sense to me.
Senators Sanders' take on money in politics is really the shtick of his campaign, and his commitment to keeping it at the top of his agenda has probably turned some people off. It's very easy to that he sounds like a shallow, single-issue candidate because he talks about it the same damn way every time. It seems canned because we've heard it so many times. Or maybe we're just so accustomed to candidates' obsession with making their platform SOUND good instead of actually BEING good that Sanders comes off as bit dry and monotone (and a little bit weird) when he talks about these things. Maybe. I personally appreciate Mr. Sanders commitment to at least putting this part of American politics in the spotlight. Call it my drinking of the liberal kool-aid if you will, but large corporations have a strangle-hold on American politics and the American economy, and it's because we let them. Every time we eat at McDonalds or buy junk from Wal-Mart, we cast a vote that says we're ok with being dependent on the people that run McDonalds and Wal-Mart. The historic amount of grass-roots support Sanders has generated has told me that at the very least a lot of people are opening their ears to a different kind of economic and political dynamic that isn't dependent on short-sighted billionaires who would put every single American in the gutter if they thought it would make them even a little bit richer.
I have to address Bernie's primary opponent on this topic, because of all the pandering junk she spews, her strange relationship with corporate interests and the nonsense that is PACs and superPACs might hit me the hardest. Money corrupts, and this notion that Clinton is somehow insulated from that is campaign spin, period. Case in point: the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place after the stock market crash of 1929 to prevent banks from doing stupid things like blending investment and commercial banking. The act was repealed in 1998, and the banking scams that followed as a result were the principle cause of the housing collapse in 2008. You can look it up. Why hasn't Mrs. Clinton committed to replacing Glass-Steagall, or even admitted that repealing it was kind of a shitty idea? Two possible factors: the campaign contributions she gets from megabanks that profited from it being repealed, or because Mr. Clinton was the one who repealed it when he was president. One makes her look like a traitor to her contributors, the other makes her look like a bad wife. Neither is good enough for me. Again, she seems more concerned with making her platform SOUND good rather than actually making it good.
Many of Mr. Sanders' most devoted supporters have probably damaged his campaign. I think we all know who I'm talking about. White guys about my age or younger who drive mom and dad's new subaru to a party school and wear khaki shorts and collared short-sleeved shirts and backwards hats and colorful sunglasses. Bernie Bros. Just as many look at Donald Trump's campaign and just see his "typical" supporter (I won't go there), plenty of people see Bernie's campaign as a ruse that only appeals to idealistic college freshmen with no real responsibilities. That's how conservative commentators frame him. It pains me to say so, but that's fair. I know plenty of Bernie Bros and Bro-ettes. In fact I probably come off as one from time to time. I'd say a lot of these folks I call peers are, (like Bernie) very well-meaning, but they miss the point of a moral presidential campaign and will vote for him because he comes off as the cool grandpa. Regardless of what they tell you their reasons are, some like him because he'll legalize pot, or because they think the way he uses his hands to talk is funny, or because they think he'll make college free. The moral and ethical gold of what he's trying to bring to the White House gets lost in the crud of his offbeat cultural identity, which is much easier to understand and get behind. Yes, he appeals to the young and restless. But he is urging us towards peace and understanding instead of chest-beating and manipulation, and I find that admirable.
I am not crazy about Mr. Sanders' economic position, even though I believe it would work. What I believe Bernie has been trying to tell all of us with his "top one percent of the top one percent" line is that it's really difficult to fathom the amount of money that is in the hands of a couple hundred people in this country when EVERYONE else sees success as a salary in the $70,000-$100,000 range. There are plenty of economic models that will show you the real disparity of income in the United States. None of them paint a rosy picture for a hard-working person. And the fact that a lot of these top-one-percenters pay a pittance (if anything) in taxes is infuriating, but usually perfectly legal. Will closing tax loopholes just encourage the search for others? Of course. But that isn't a reason to not close them. Will raising taxes significantly on the wealthy take incentive away from being rich? No, not really. It's the scale of money that is a barrier to most peoples' understanding of Bernie's plan. It's staggering. Even at a time when billions of dollars are thrown around in our government like it's god-damned monopoly money, you better believe if a few hundred of the richest people in America payed what the rest of us pay in taxes, that federal deficit everyone's talking about would be a whole lot more manageable, if not gone entirely.
My issue comes, surprisingly, on his principles. Sanders has proposed funding public college education through a tax on risky stock market maneuvers. I don't like that. As a public college student, I don't want ass hole people doing ass hole things with money to be how my education is paid for. It creates a conflict of interests that encourages ass hole things. In essence, public college students would be cheering every time a credit default swap goes down. Judging by how he talks about Wall Street, that's not what Bernie wants. It's not what I want. I agree that if we are to call ourselves a democracy, money should not be a barrier to quality education at any level. I don't pretend to have a better plan than the one Mr. Sanders has put forward, but I think if any of his proposals are ill-concieved, it's this one. It would probably work, at least in the short-term. It's economically feasible and the idea that there isn't enough money to make it work is probably false. But it does not fall under what I would consider a "moral economy," which Senator Sanders and his pal Pope Francis talk so much about.
Of course as a senator who lacks a great deal of foreign policy experience, Mr. Sanders has been questioned quite a bit regarding his readiness in this area. He has consistently voted against the various international clusterfucks we've gotten involved in during his time in the senate, and it's perfectly fair to have concerns about what he will do with the reins of the most powerful military in the world. This is where I think Bernie necessarily breaks from his morals. He says "we must crush ISIS," but Bernie doesn't want to crush ISIS. He doesn't want to smoke a peace pipe with them either. He wants to see the people who are directly affected by ISIS every day (poor, marginalized people in Middle Eastern counties with very weak governments) to be able to defend themselves. Which is what I think is right and what I think should happen. The coalition of nations that he speaks of in the Middle East has much more at stake in that fight, despite republicans' attempts to rationalize their Islamic boogeyman bullshit. But not many people in America (and even fewer in the military) like even the hint that we're having our battles fought for us. They especially don't like seeing a shiny new 14 billion dollar aircraft carrier on the sidelines when it could be sending planes to do cool American stuff in places very, very far away from America. It's a fine line Bernie must walk. He's the doviest of the doves, and most of our legislators are hawks. Will he risk continuing or escalating these conflicts if his military advisors think it's necessary? We as Americans pride ourselves on not really giving a flying what the rest of the world does or says or thinks of us, but Sanders consistently ranks as the favorite among foreigners and American voters abroad. Maybe because they think Bernie will at least think twice before bombing the bejesus out of some remote village or impoverished city neighborhood?
He is a fascinating man. He is a good man. He's not afraid to be ridiculed or criticized for doing what he feels is right. He is committed to peace and sustainability, and his record leads me to believe that he will continue to be. He doesn't comb his hair. For what the office of President of the United States represents, that's enough for my vote. But the question I and quite a few of my peers have faced in this election cycle is: does anyone really care how I vote? The Republican National Committee's position on their primary system becomes more and more fluid as their anti-establishment front runner barrels hair-first into the convention. The Democrats, however, appear to be sticking to their guns (no pun intended). Their system of picking a nominee is tired and undemocratic, and it is designed to push the candidate that the party honchos think will support their agenda, not the one who will lead the country best. Bernie is rocking the boat at a time when the Democratic party doesn't think the boat needs to be rocked. Hillary is the heir apparent to the throne made by Obama, and Bernie is the weird step child trying to steal it. Hillary, to me, is not the antichrist. She's just completely and utterly fake. She'll ride Obama's coattails when it's convenient for her, throw him under the bus when its not, and give canned, shallow, legalistic responses the rest of the time. If we want the rest of the world to take us seriously, Bernie Sanders will be living in the White House this time next year. But therein lies the most American of questions: do we care if the rest of the world takes us seriously? Can it ever take us seriously again when we're letting a reality television star make legitimate waves in our national politics? It'll be tough. Bernie isn't perfect, but he has gone about his senetorial career the right way, he has gone about his campaign the right way, and I'm tempted to believe he will go about his presidency the right way. He isn't perfect, but he has the vision and the audacity to make compassion and equality the axis upon which he and his campaign spin, and that's the kind of leader I can respect and trust.
Guns seem to be an issue where Mr. Sanders' position doesn't really connect with any particular group, including his supporters. Despite his liberal credentials, he's consistently refused to hold gun manufacturers accountable for violence perpetrated using their products. I have to agree with him on this. It's a matter of principles, which from what I have seen Mr. Sanders seems to know a thing or two about. If we are to blame gun makers for the terrible things people do with guns, it sets a very vague and easily construed precedent for other manufacturers. Do we blame soft drink companies for making us fat? Do we blame car companies for vehicular homicides? Sounds contrived or far-fetched, maybe even like a veiled attempt to push the NRA's agenda, but it's true. Bernie is from a rural state that takes its guns seriously, and gun control legislation has made virtually no progress there while Bernie has been in office. Yet Vermont has the lowest gun-related homicide rate in the country. I understand perfectly that this is a sensitive, emotional area for a lot of people, and as such hasty decisions are almost justified. But I take issue with the Clinton campaign turning the families of gun violence victims into a political sideshow. While I'm sure these families are participating willingly, they're being used. Saying Bernie is soft on guns and lumping him in with the NRA is a cheap way of sidestepping the principle upon which he bases his opinion. To say that he is pandering to gun owners is silly because (excuse my generalization) most American gun-lovers aren't going to vote for Bernie Sanders regardless of his position on guns. The NRA hates him, regardless of what Mrs. Clinton says. From what I've seen and heard, he feels the problems we've had involving guns is a cultural problem and that guns are a part of that culture, not the center of it. Makes sense to me.
Senators Sanders' take on money in politics is really the shtick of his campaign, and his commitment to keeping it at the top of his agenda has probably turned some people off. It's very easy to that he sounds like a shallow, single-issue candidate because he talks about it the same damn way every time. It seems canned because we've heard it so many times. Or maybe we're just so accustomed to candidates' obsession with making their platform SOUND good instead of actually BEING good that Sanders comes off as bit dry and monotone (and a little bit weird) when he talks about these things. Maybe. I personally appreciate Mr. Sanders commitment to at least putting this part of American politics in the spotlight. Call it my drinking of the liberal kool-aid if you will, but large corporations have a strangle-hold on American politics and the American economy, and it's because we let them. Every time we eat at McDonalds or buy junk from Wal-Mart, we cast a vote that says we're ok with being dependent on the people that run McDonalds and Wal-Mart. The historic amount of grass-roots support Sanders has generated has told me that at the very least a lot of people are opening their ears to a different kind of economic and political dynamic that isn't dependent on short-sighted billionaires who would put every single American in the gutter if they thought it would make them even a little bit richer.
I have to address Bernie's primary opponent on this topic, because of all the pandering junk she spews, her strange relationship with corporate interests and the nonsense that is PACs and superPACs might hit me the hardest. Money corrupts, and this notion that Clinton is somehow insulated from that is campaign spin, period. Case in point: the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place after the stock market crash of 1929 to prevent banks from doing stupid things like blending investment and commercial banking. The act was repealed in 1998, and the banking scams that followed as a result were the principle cause of the housing collapse in 2008. You can look it up. Why hasn't Mrs. Clinton committed to replacing Glass-Steagall, or even admitted that repealing it was kind of a shitty idea? Two possible factors: the campaign contributions she gets from megabanks that profited from it being repealed, or because Mr. Clinton was the one who repealed it when he was president. One makes her look like a traitor to her contributors, the other makes her look like a bad wife. Neither is good enough for me. Again, she seems more concerned with making her platform SOUND good rather than actually making it good.
Many of Mr. Sanders' most devoted supporters have probably damaged his campaign. I think we all know who I'm talking about. White guys about my age or younger who drive mom and dad's new subaru to a party school and wear khaki shorts and collared short-sleeved shirts and backwards hats and colorful sunglasses. Bernie Bros. Just as many look at Donald Trump's campaign and just see his "typical" supporter (I won't go there), plenty of people see Bernie's campaign as a ruse that only appeals to idealistic college freshmen with no real responsibilities. That's how conservative commentators frame him. It pains me to say so, but that's fair. I know plenty of Bernie Bros and Bro-ettes. In fact I probably come off as one from time to time. I'd say a lot of these folks I call peers are, (like Bernie) very well-meaning, but they miss the point of a moral presidential campaign and will vote for him because he comes off as the cool grandpa. Regardless of what they tell you their reasons are, some like him because he'll legalize pot, or because they think the way he uses his hands to talk is funny, or because they think he'll make college free. The moral and ethical gold of what he's trying to bring to the White House gets lost in the crud of his offbeat cultural identity, which is much easier to understand and get behind. Yes, he appeals to the young and restless. But he is urging us towards peace and understanding instead of chest-beating and manipulation, and I find that admirable.
I am not crazy about Mr. Sanders' economic position, even though I believe it would work. What I believe Bernie has been trying to tell all of us with his "top one percent of the top one percent" line is that it's really difficult to fathom the amount of money that is in the hands of a couple hundred people in this country when EVERYONE else sees success as a salary in the $70,000-$100,000 range. There are plenty of economic models that will show you the real disparity of income in the United States. None of them paint a rosy picture for a hard-working person. And the fact that a lot of these top-one-percenters pay a pittance (if anything) in taxes is infuriating, but usually perfectly legal. Will closing tax loopholes just encourage the search for others? Of course. But that isn't a reason to not close them. Will raising taxes significantly on the wealthy take incentive away from being rich? No, not really. It's the scale of money that is a barrier to most peoples' understanding of Bernie's plan. It's staggering. Even at a time when billions of dollars are thrown around in our government like it's god-damned monopoly money, you better believe if a few hundred of the richest people in America payed what the rest of us pay in taxes, that federal deficit everyone's talking about would be a whole lot more manageable, if not gone entirely.
My issue comes, surprisingly, on his principles. Sanders has proposed funding public college education through a tax on risky stock market maneuvers. I don't like that. As a public college student, I don't want ass hole people doing ass hole things with money to be how my education is paid for. It creates a conflict of interests that encourages ass hole things. In essence, public college students would be cheering every time a credit default swap goes down. Judging by how he talks about Wall Street, that's not what Bernie wants. It's not what I want. I agree that if we are to call ourselves a democracy, money should not be a barrier to quality education at any level. I don't pretend to have a better plan than the one Mr. Sanders has put forward, but I think if any of his proposals are ill-concieved, it's this one. It would probably work, at least in the short-term. It's economically feasible and the idea that there isn't enough money to make it work is probably false. But it does not fall under what I would consider a "moral economy," which Senator Sanders and his pal Pope Francis talk so much about.
Of course as a senator who lacks a great deal of foreign policy experience, Mr. Sanders has been questioned quite a bit regarding his readiness in this area. He has consistently voted against the various international clusterfucks we've gotten involved in during his time in the senate, and it's perfectly fair to have concerns about what he will do with the reins of the most powerful military in the world. This is where I think Bernie necessarily breaks from his morals. He says "we must crush ISIS," but Bernie doesn't want to crush ISIS. He doesn't want to smoke a peace pipe with them either. He wants to see the people who are directly affected by ISIS every day (poor, marginalized people in Middle Eastern counties with very weak governments) to be able to defend themselves. Which is what I think is right and what I think should happen. The coalition of nations that he speaks of in the Middle East has much more at stake in that fight, despite republicans' attempts to rationalize their Islamic boogeyman bullshit. But not many people in America (and even fewer in the military) like even the hint that we're having our battles fought for us. They especially don't like seeing a shiny new 14 billion dollar aircraft carrier on the sidelines when it could be sending planes to do cool American stuff in places very, very far away from America. It's a fine line Bernie must walk. He's the doviest of the doves, and most of our legislators are hawks. Will he risk continuing or escalating these conflicts if his military advisors think it's necessary? We as Americans pride ourselves on not really giving a flying what the rest of the world does or says or thinks of us, but Sanders consistently ranks as the favorite among foreigners and American voters abroad. Maybe because they think Bernie will at least think twice before bombing the bejesus out of some remote village or impoverished city neighborhood?
He is a fascinating man. He is a good man. He's not afraid to be ridiculed or criticized for doing what he feels is right. He is committed to peace and sustainability, and his record leads me to believe that he will continue to be. He doesn't comb his hair. For what the office of President of the United States represents, that's enough for my vote. But the question I and quite a few of my peers have faced in this election cycle is: does anyone really care how I vote? The Republican National Committee's position on their primary system becomes more and more fluid as their anti-establishment front runner barrels hair-first into the convention. The Democrats, however, appear to be sticking to their guns (no pun intended). Their system of picking a nominee is tired and undemocratic, and it is designed to push the candidate that the party honchos think will support their agenda, not the one who will lead the country best. Bernie is rocking the boat at a time when the Democratic party doesn't think the boat needs to be rocked. Hillary is the heir apparent to the throne made by Obama, and Bernie is the weird step child trying to steal it. Hillary, to me, is not the antichrist. She's just completely and utterly fake. She'll ride Obama's coattails when it's convenient for her, throw him under the bus when its not, and give canned, shallow, legalistic responses the rest of the time. If we want the rest of the world to take us seriously, Bernie Sanders will be living in the White House this time next year. But therein lies the most American of questions: do we care if the rest of the world takes us seriously? Can it ever take us seriously again when we're letting a reality television star make legitimate waves in our national politics? It'll be tough. Bernie isn't perfect, but he has gone about his senetorial career the right way, he has gone about his campaign the right way, and I'm tempted to believe he will go about his presidency the right way. He isn't perfect, but he has the vision and the audacity to make compassion and equality the axis upon which he and his campaign spin, and that's the kind of leader I can respect and trust.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Donald Trump
Remember that time when a multi-billionaire convinced much of poor
America that his leadership was the solution to their problems? Remember when
that same guy glazed over his lengthy list of bankruptcies, questionable
business ventures and outright scams and touted his business acumen to the
nation? Remember when that same guy, in an era of unavoidable and often
extremely beneficial exchanging of cultures and values, convinced a vast number
of American citizens (themselves almost entirely recent decendants of immigrants)
that their righteous discontent was the product of foreign infiltration? You
might even remember when he got roped into asinine feuds with debate moderators
and politicians, and got so pissed that he bragged about his penis size on
national prime-time television. Remember when he even played footsie with
domestic racist extremist groups while simultaneously telling Americans that he
would win the majority of black and Latino voters? And he had the stones to
call himself presidential material? Jesus Christ, what a god damned shit show
that was.
Yes. It is very easy to be cynical about
Donald Trump. And yes, I hope what I wrote above proves to be prophetic, i.e. I hope he does not get much farther in this election. However, it is this cynicism and
anticipation of ruin that has helped push Mr. Trump farther into his political
career than even he probably expected. But why should he be taken serious? Why do I even
feel compelled to write this right now? He looks and sounds more ridiculous by
the day. He says things and makes decisions one would expect from a fussy toddler.
He is constantly changing his positions to quietly cover the ill-conceived
comments he made publicly only weeks or even days earlier. He is asking to be
insulted and discredited. And his "fans," because I really don't
believe he has a constituency in the traditional sense of the word, absolutely
love it. And if that all sounds a little silly to you, just ask someone from
another country what they think of all this. John Oliver, the British
late-night comedy show host, calls our current presidential race the "Clowntown Fuck-the-World
Shitshow 2016."
Like most historically pivotal moments, the scene was set for this
drama long before the leading lady arrived. As what I will call a history/social
studies "person," I will tell you that the comparisons made between
Trump's rise to prominence and those of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are
not based in fantasy. You needn't be a history/social studies person to
understand that. The viral pictures and memes are out there. They are not all
well-presented, and I am sure some of them are outright inaccurate. But upon
fairly basic examination, they point out fairly basic similarities. Folks like
Mussolini and Hitler are the modern versions of "strongmen:" they
feed off of a country's disgruntled, disenfranchised citizens who feel left out politically and economically and don't quite know who to
blame. These leaders' obsession with winning just shows that they care very little about
the means by which they “win.” No serious political figure would run for
leadership of such a country on the basis of "we're in deep trouble because
you're all sort of uneducated and you don't work hard enough." In fact,
the opposite platform usually gains support: "it's everyone else's fault
that you feel like you have no control over your life." Immigrants,
particularly those of unusual religious persuasions, usually get the ass-end of
this rhetoric. This is because they are easy targets, period (see: Jews and gypsies in
Nazi Germany).
This is natural. We humans do not like to
be told that we have to work harder or think harder. If we enjoyed work,
physical or otherwise, we would have never invented even the most basic tools
and machines. But this implies that we don't really want to be compassionate to
other people, because that requires us to understand their perspectives and
struggles. And that's hard. It's even harder when you just got your ass kicked
in a war you started (that's Germany) or are getting your ass kicked in a
economic system you invented (that's us and China). In comes a tough,
shit-talking, guns a-blazin' type who (on paper) has achieved success and knows
what he's talking about. He tells the "common folk" that they just
have to get rid of illegals, or Jews, or "untermensch," and things
will be peachy. History tells us that this leads to things being very not
peachy (see: 60 million people dead). If Mr. Trump seems docile compared to Hitler
now, take into consideration that Hitler was elected during a time of serious
political splintering in a chaotic post-WWI Germany.
On to the financial side of things. I will
make a blanket statement that may or may not ruffle feathers, but anyone in the
world who has almost seven billion dollars in assets is probably a very
dishonest person. And when I say dishonest, I don't mean they necessarily tell
lies. I mean they only tell the truths they want others to hear. It is how
business is done in the modern economy, and one could argue it is how business
has been done since "business" became a thing. No one really makes
money, let alone becomes fabulously rich, by giving customers all the facts (this should conjure up visions of the used car salesman telling you the interior of your new car was just detailed when the transmission is shot). One could say Trump is marketing himself as "the president we never knew we wanted." Recent revelations into Mr. Trump's failed business ventures show he wasn't
even all that great at hiding his omissions of facts. He just did it so many
times and in so many ways that he eventually had enough money to cover things
like a fake university and the bankruptcy of a large casino in Atlantic
City.
However, any billionaire knows how to sell
things. They do this very well, and they will do whatever they have to do to appeal to the largest possible
customer base possible. That is what is taught in every business class in every
college in America (if it sounds sleazy and impersonal, it's because it is). Where Trump and conservatives like him lose their footing is at a simple and irrefutable truth about economics: you cannot
recreate the same market conditions twice, let alone in different decades. Any
political candidate or hobo on the street who says he wishes things were
"like the good old days" (when Ronald Reagan was president) does not
understand that market conditions, just like everything else, are always
changing and are never the same twice. Trump has not had a come-to-Jesus moment
and suddenly recognizes the plight of the working man. He has not taken up the
torch of American conservativism and wants it to flourish again. I honestly do
not think he gives a flying you-know-what if he makes America "great
again." America has been great for Donald Trump, and he wants to keep it that
way. That's it. That's the way his mind works. Maybe a lot of people like that.
I don't.
As an American who is still of military
age (draftable), the title of "Commander in Chief" of the armed
forces is something I can honestly say distrubs me when I imagine it before
Donald Trump's name. As I discussed with my mother recently, the moment that I
began to really see Mr. Trump as a man unfit for leadership, let alone
political leadership, came in a fairly early televised debate when he was asked
a question regarding the "triad" of the United States nuclear
arsenal, specifically which part of the triad would he consider most in need of
an upgrade. This "triad" refers to nuclear weapons that can be fired
from submarines, aircraft, and silos on land. As a geek, I kind of knew that.
Donald Trump did not have the slightest fucking idea what that question even
meant, let alone what his answer to it would be. He proceeded to dance around
with the words of the question, throwing in a few phrases that made it sound as
though he knew how important man's most powerful creation was. He did not
answer the question. He did not address the basic premise of the question. He
did not even have a firm grasp on what the question was asking.
What troubles me the most about this is not
that he knew very little about nuclear weapons. I doubt any president since
Truman had a very clear understanding of how they even worked. What absolutely
infuriates me is that he did not take the two minutes necessary to read the
wikipedia intro about American nuclear weapons policies which would have
allowed him to not sound like a complete ass when asked about it. He decided he
was going to wing it on a question about a technology that has shaped the world
we live in, particularly with regards to military tactics. That goes beyond
simple ignorance into the dangerous territory of conscious negligence. Not very
god damned presidential. If he thinks I will be willing to take
another person's life because he does not even have a remote idea of what he is
doing, excuse me but he can quite literally fuck himself. For his part, Marco
Rubio actually had a pretty cogent answer to that particular question.
I will not even waste much time addressing
the childish mud-slinging between candidates that has gained some steam
recently. While Donald has certainly proven himself to be a master in this
area, his nonsense has revealed which candidates are just desperately clinging
to their hopes of actual political success and don’t have Americans’ best
interests in mind or at heart. Which of course is all of them. Except maybe for
Bob Kasich he's actually been pretty chill about it.
As a categorically cynical and sarcastic person, it’s tough to not
throw my hands up at this entire process. The fact that men like Donald Trump
or even the pandering, canned-response Canadian robot known to humans as Ted
Cruz can gain a legitimate following in a “free, well-educated” country like
ours is, in a word, disappointing. The more facts, figures, historical
comparisons, and plain common sense one throws in the direction of people
who support these candidates and their ideologies, the more they push back.
According to Facebook, some of this is just to “piss off their liberal friends.” Maybe so. I will argue that at least some of it has to do with a number of our fellow
citizens that have not quite come to grips with the fact that the guy calling
the shots in the white house has black skin. They are entitled to that mindset.
Donald Trump, or at least the persona he has occupied for the last year or so,
is scared of all this. I can say this because he has behaved the way any animal
behaves when it is scared: it goes out of its way to show everyone how incredibly
not scared it is. Most of his “huge” base of support is scared too. They’re scared
of what will happen if their cities and towns are controlled by Muslims and Mexicans
because they have not taken the time to understand a Muslim or a Mexican, and
as such they lump them all in with what they see on TV: generally not the most
flattering context for foreigners.
I can only say that there is certainly a place for conservative
politics and conservative social values. Losing sight of fundamental, unifying
principles has gotten us into a bit of an ideological quagmire as a nation. But
denying that things are changing and will continue to change is absolutely
bananas, and anyone who tells you that they can change things back to the way
they were is a.) a wizard, or b.) a liar. Our grandparents did not die
thousands of miles away from home fighting fascism for that garbage. Trump will not make America
“great again.” He is saying that because he thinks if he gives us easy slogans,
easy talking points, and easy solutions to easy problems, we will buy what he’s
selling. He thinks things like making an effort to be compassionate and understanding
are a little too hard for us. You could say he’s banking on it. Thus far, he
hasn’t been very far off the mark.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
A Prayer for Peace
I come to you, as all do, imperfect.
I can only begin by thanking you for my immense imperfection.
It is one of the many powerful sources of unity that bind us to one another, as well as to you.
I come with aspirations which I trust you will be pleased to see us reach.
They are things I know we must strive for if we are to leave this world acceptable in your eyes, as well as the eyes of our children.
May we know that those who partake in evil acts or wish us harm are only as flawed as we,
For their perspectives we can never hope to fully understand.
May we know that violence and that from which it stems can only give birth to more violence,
For those who are weary will always be driven to violence if it is all they know others will understand.
May we seek to more deeply understand the wisdom laid before us in the natural world that we strive to protect from harm,
For it has given and continues to give us life.
May we seek to understand the struggle of the tree which grows from sheer rock,
For it has made its way without regard for convention, and grows more sturdy than that which grows in the heart of the grove.
May we know that our love of money negates our love of you and of one another,
For money has never solved a problem that love and kindness could not.
May we understand that fear, hatred, jealousy, pride and love are inseparable,
For they are only different manifestations of the same emotion, the power of which is incalculable.
May we be honest with one another as well as with ourselves,
For it is through manipulating, omitting and ignoring that which we know to be true that we separate ourselves from you and from one another.
May we seek to honor those who profess and practice love among us,
For they will always strike great fear in those who profit from fear.
May we never place blame on others for our shortcomings and instead face them bravely and honestly,
For the it is in calmly and sincerely recognizing and addressing our faults that we rectify them.
May we know the immense strength of kindness that comes without stipulation,
For we know in our hearts that it is the only kind of love worth giving or receiving.
May we bring kindness to all things to the center of our lives,
For it renews us and never fail us.
May we accept the responsibility to create a world determined to bring about peace through love, kindness and compassion.
For it will not only honor you, but it will honor all those who are living, have lived, and ever will live.
Amen.
I can only begin by thanking you for my immense imperfection.
It is one of the many powerful sources of unity that bind us to one another, as well as to you.
I come with aspirations which I trust you will be pleased to see us reach.
They are things I know we must strive for if we are to leave this world acceptable in your eyes, as well as the eyes of our children.
May we know that those who partake in evil acts or wish us harm are only as flawed as we,
For their perspectives we can never hope to fully understand.
May we know that violence and that from which it stems can only give birth to more violence,
For those who are weary will always be driven to violence if it is all they know others will understand.
May we seek to more deeply understand the wisdom laid before us in the natural world that we strive to protect from harm,
For it has given and continues to give us life.
May we seek to understand the struggle of the tree which grows from sheer rock,
For it has made its way without regard for convention, and grows more sturdy than that which grows in the heart of the grove.
May we know that our love of money negates our love of you and of one another,
For money has never solved a problem that love and kindness could not.
May we understand that fear, hatred, jealousy, pride and love are inseparable,
For they are only different manifestations of the same emotion, the power of which is incalculable.
May we be honest with one another as well as with ourselves,
For it is through manipulating, omitting and ignoring that which we know to be true that we separate ourselves from you and from one another.
May we seek to honor those who profess and practice love among us,
For they will always strike great fear in those who profit from fear.
May we never place blame on others for our shortcomings and instead face them bravely and honestly,
For the it is in calmly and sincerely recognizing and addressing our faults that we rectify them.
May we know the immense strength of kindness that comes without stipulation,
For we know in our hearts that it is the only kind of love worth giving or receiving.
May we bring kindness to all things to the center of our lives,
For it renews us and never fail us.
May we accept the responsibility to create a world determined to bring about peace through love, kindness and compassion.
For it will not only honor you, but it will honor all those who are living, have lived, and ever will live.
Amen.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
The Tocks Island Dam Project
In
examining the relationship between the American people and those they have
chosen to govern them, one is almost always confronted with glaring
inconsistencies, as well as the tensions that result because of them. These
tensions should come as no surprise, as America is ultimately a nation founded
upon the unwillingness of its people to be governed by a powerful distant
ruler. Though it may not always appear to be so in a world increasingly
disconnected to its past, the very first political and social sentiments that
led to the independence of the United States continue to have an impact on
both the legislative policy and overall
character of the nation. One of these divisive sentiments coincides with one of
the great distortions of American law: the right to keep one’s property. Though
it is both constitutionally guaranteed and morally essential, Americans’ right
to their property is not as sacred as most would like to believe.
In
a strikingly scenic but otherwise quiet and unassuming portion of the Delaware
River, this puzzling convergence of ideas became a national spectacle for more
than four decades. At Tocks Island, just a few miles upstream from the famous
Delaware Water Gap, the state governments of New Jersey and Pennsylvania sought
to build one of the largest dams in the United States in order to create an
enormous reservoir, mostly for hydroelectric power generation. The plan
ultimately failed, but it was not without its share of unfortunate
consequences. Through a legal principle known as eminent domain, lands on both
sides of the river that would have been flooded by the dam were seized by the
government, and the buildings thereon were condemned. While a great deal of
legal discussion has and will continue to take place regarding the subject of
eminent domain, much can be gleaned by an in-depth examination of the social
impact of one of the most significant examples of its application in American
history. Through an understanding of how the events that were meant to
precipitate the completion Tocks Island Dam Project and how they affected the social
landscape of the region in which it was to be built, a more thorough
understanding of the questionable constitutionality (and morality) of eminent domain
can be established.
The
Delaware River, just north of the famous Delaware Water Gap, is widely regarded
as stunningly picturesque and a place where those in search of the rest and
relaxation afforded by nature can find satisfaction. Unfortunately, the natural
beauty of the area belies its sordid past. The story of the Tocks Island Dam
Project begins in 1955, when devastating floods from the remnants off two
successive hurricanes in the span of one week (Connie and then Diane) caused
unprecedented and since unmatched destruction in communities along the Delaware
River and its many tributaries. The loss of over 100 lives and destruction of
property by these events prompted the federal government to allocate two
million dollars in 1956 for the Army Corps of Engineers to examine the
feasibility of constructing a dam along the Delaware in order to prevent future
disasters like those in 1955. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) was
formed in 1961 to decide what direction policy would move in light of the
corps’ findings. This commission was headed by the governors of the states of
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware, as well as the United States
Secretary of the Interior. The corps
adopted a plan for the dam, which was approved by the commission in 1962.[1]
What
was proposed was, in a word, imposing. The dam itself was planned to be 160
feet high and 3,000 feet long and composed of earth and stone. The resulting
reservoir would have been 37 miles long and had a surface area of 12,300 acres.[2]
Obviously, the amount of existing land affected would have been equally
staggering: the reservoir would have wiped out 12,000 acres of woodland along
the sides of the mountains leading down to the Delaware on both the New Jersey
and Pennsylvania side of the river.[3] The
destruction of an environment of this size would have had ecological impacts
which could not have been foreseen at the time, such as the disruption of fish
migrations and the destruction of ecosystems which naturally purify river water
before it makes its way to the ocean.[4] This
factor would become increasingly important, as the environmental movement would
begin to orient the national conscience against projects like the dam.
Proponents
of the dam countered calls for greater respect for nature and the need for
recreational opportunities in the area by citing the authorization of the
Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area (DWGNRA), which today covers even
more than the initial 72,000 acres called for by Congress. This was designed to
create opportunities for such recreational opportunities as boating, fishing
and hiking in and around the reservoir. While the Army Corps of Engineers
assumed that the dam would be built (and as such attempted to make the dam and
the recreational area inseparable), the National Park Service had no such
confidence in the plan and inserted language into the proposal for the DWGNRA
which allowed it to exist regardless of whether the dam was built or not.[5]
This would prove to be a savvy move, as the DWGNRA exists today and the dam
does not.
The
acquisition of land for the project did not begin until 1965, but it
experienced little opposition and as such took place relatively quickly. The
cumulative impact of the government takeover of such a large swath of land,
though it was sparsely inhabited, could be starkly seen in the small towns even
in 2003, several years after the project was finally terminated:
Bushkill and
Dingmans Ferry had become ghost towns and Walpack's population dropped from 384
to 67. People lost their homes, their livelihoods and their heritage. Park
records show 10,000 properties, many belonging to generations of families as
far back as the colonial period, were bought or condemned. More than 3,000
homes occupied by 8,000 people were razed, 25 summer camps, 125 farms and more
than 100 businesses, seven churches and three schools were all demolished or
abandoned.[6]
600 residents whose
properties were condemned filed a lawsuit against the project and the legal
entities that had authorized it. In an ironic turn of events that would set an
unfortunate tone for the project as a whole, the case was dismissed on the
grounds that the government had not consented to being sued.[7]
With so much momentum and government backing for the
project, it is not difficult to see why the project might have progressed
smoothly. However, this would not be the case. A synthesis of many factors led
to the stagnation and ultimate demise of the Tocks Island Dam, essentially
beginning in 1971 when the Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental impact
statement on the project was made public. Though it would eventually prove to
be understated, the report created a new (and more powerful) base of resistance
for the dam: the environmental community.[8]
The chief environmental concern proved to be a process called eutrophication:
Eutrophication causes increased
algae blooms and rooted aquatic plants. In turn, this causes the loss of game
fish, changes in water quality, and aesthetic problems. Nutrients from chicken
and cow dung and from fertilizers have been entering the Delaware River for
centuries, but as long as the river is free-flowing, there is no problem.
However, if the river were to be dammed, the bacteria would back up at the dam
site. This would cause a severe rise in algae, which would eventually take over
the reservoir.[9]
As will be touched on
later, increased public awareness towards issues such as these only came to the
forefront of national attention after 1969, when a great cultural and
legislative shift in relation to the environment took place, punctuated by the
creation of the Environmental Protection Agency a year later.[10]
With the tide of public opinion and subsequent tide of leadership opinion
turning against the project, projected costs began to multiply as more and more
stringent regulations, expensive impact studies and even public relations
campaigns slowed and ultimately helped doom the project.
While the environmental movement is given a great deal of
credit for stunting the Tocks Island Dam Project, there have been compelling
arguments made which cite the war in Vietnam as the deciding factor in the
project’s demise. This perspective, described at length in Kathleen
Duca-Sandberg’s dissertation on the topic, finds support in what is considered
the most thorough work on the project, Richard C. Albert’s book Damming the Delaware: The Rise and Fall of
the Tocks Island Dam Project. Both make the argument that environmental
activists are given a disproportional amount of credit for halting the dam’s
construction, and claim that two central factors involved in the conflict in
Vietnam during the same period diverted key resources away from the project.
The
first, and perhaps most apparent, was the diversion of essential funds
originally appropriated by the federal government for the project to functions
involved with the war.[11]
This of course was compounded by the aforementioned ballooning costs caused by
unforeseen regulations, as well as President Lyndon Johnson’s need for federal
funds to push his Great Society Legislation. The second factor would be the
erosion of public trust in government following the series of disturbing
revelations and contradictory policies involved in the war.[12]
While it is dangerous to make the generalization that these were the primary,
overarching factors in the situation, it is nonetheless a compelling argument.
Of course, as with all projects which alter the physical
landscape to the degree that the Tocks Island Dam would have, concerns
regarding the destruction of historically significant structures, natural scenery
and archeological sites also played a role in the downfall of the project.[13] Sunfish
Pond, a glacial mountaintop lake which hikers can access via the Appalachian
Trail, became public relations boon for opponents of the dam. The lake would
have been wiped out had the dam been constructed, and nearby residents staged a
number of public protests to draw both regional and national attention to the
injustices being done to the public in the area.[14]
This would become a common theme in the later fight against the dam, as a
number of underlying factors in the motivations of the project’s proponents
became increasingly public.
As mentioned before, the convergence of these factors ultimately
sunk the project, and placing hierarchical value on the merits of each is
unproductive. The most important information gleaned from all of these factors
is that they led to the slow but eventual de-authorization of the dam, with the
leaders of the DRBC voting to halt construction 3 separate times (finally in
1975).[15]
Though it would periodically become a political talking point during elections
in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania for a number of years to come, the
project fell from public interest. Many local residents did not even know that
the project was still technically active when it was definitively de-authorized
by congress in 1992.[16]
What was left in the wake of the failed plan was a combination of two primary physical
consequences: the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, and hundreds
of structures, taken by the government, which were now almost entirely
derelict. While these factors are easily quantified and assessed, their impact
on the lives of those who were directly affected by the initial actions of the
project offer equal (if not greater) insight into the legacy of the project.
The scope of the project, though its immediate impacts
were confined to a relatively small area, cannot be ignored. A short article in
The Lock Haven Express, over 120
miles west of the proposed dam site, describes the location of the dam and its
potential benefits to the regional economy.[17] Though
it may come as a surprise in light of the ultimate outcome, the Tocks Island
Project was met with relative support from locals. In 1959, Howard Rausch of
Pocono Manor, Pennsylvania, wrote a short article for The Middletown Daily Record, a newspaper based out of Middletown,
Pennsylvania, in which he seemed to look towards the approval of the dam with
optimism. In his article, Rausch says that although it was determined that the
dam would likely not be built until the 1970’s, the leaders of the project
seemed optimistic that the project would push forward and provide the region
with a much needed infusion of tourist attention. His article states that
though the project has obviously slowed, the DRBC and its advisory commission
are “pulling together in the same direction for the same common cause.”[18]
By the mid-1960’s, however, public sentiment was clearly
on the move. In an article written for The
Pocono Record, a newspaper published in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (only a
few miles from the proposed dam site), a “planning expert” who is not directly
named warned that the processes which were leading up to the Tocks Island Dam
construction threatened to turn the community into a “well-to-do slum.” This
assessment, echoed by the then-Monroe County Commissioner Stuart F. Pipher,
came in light of the concerns many in the community held regarding the future
development in the non-government owned lands surrounding the DWGNRA. With
large housing developments already springing up in the area which consisted
mostly of summer and vacation homes for residents of New Jersey and New York,
the planning expert warned that should these developments become more
accommodating for permanent residents in the wake of the dam construction, the
infrastructure currently in place (particularly roads and highways) would be
woefully insufficient.[19]
In an article also published on the same day, Van Fleet
described a local office to be opened by the Army Corps of Engineers from which
they would perform the necessary tasks involved with acquiring land for the
proposed dam. The article describes the meeting during which the office was
presented to the public as a tense one. Among other questions, local citizens
present questioned the safety of the dam, to which the Corps representative
replied, “No Corps of Engineers’ dam has failed any place in the country – any
place in the world.” Van Fleet went on to essentially validate the citizens’
concerns by citing the admittedly complex and challenging nature of the
riverbed, as well as the number of concerns that had postponed the
construction.[20]
August 1, 1975, the day following the final vote to
discontinue the Tocks Island Dam construction, The Pocono Record provided
almost exclusive coverage of the reactions of locals, union leaders,
legislators and others in the wake of the vote. Mark Brown described the fight
for the project as a “battle of emotions,” pitting faraway lawmakers against
local leaders, almost none of whom wanted the project to move forward. He also
cited what he described as the “escalating clash between engineers and
environmentalists.”[21]
Flip DeLuca provided a number of contexts for the decision in his piece, which
cites the reactions of a number of community members and officials representing
a number of interests. The mayors of both Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg were
both pleased with the decision, though Stroudsburg mayor Warren F. Loney said
of the federal government: “They should have had hearings long before land
acquisition started. The way it was handled in the beginning was horrible.”[22]
Perhaps the most telling article was written by Jeff
Widmer, in which he interviews a number of citizens who lost their homes and
land to a project which would now likely never be built. Henry Tucker, who lost
110 acres and his home to the project, said, “That was where I wanted to live
the rest of my life. It’s a shame, because the whole valley – now it’s nothing
but weeds and rubbish” Frank Kober, who also lost his home, expressed a degree
of disdain for leadership for not using the land that they purchased: “I still
feel they shouldn’t take peoples’ homes and then not put in the dam. Why should
people have to give up their homes so that city people can come and live on the
land?”[23]
With this type of testimony in mind, it is clear that the
resentment towards the project was and is multifaceted and deep-seated. As
mentioned before, the principle of eminent domain was used as the primary means
of purchasing the lands needed in order to build the dam. The document which
American government uses to derive the power necessary to take individuals’
property is in fact the United States Constitution, which states in its Fifth
Amendment, “Nor shall private property be taken for private use without just
compensation.”[24]
This is obviously somewhat fluid language, and has led to a number of inquiries
regarding how it is to be applied. What constitutes “public use?” What
constitutes “just compensation?” Who determines both? While the first two
questions are obviously contingent on the situation, the answer to the final
question has become clear through a number of instances, including the Tocks
Island Dam Project: the Federal Government.[25]
Using the Tocks Island project as a basis of comparison,
the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court
decision, handed down in 2005, shows both the stark contrast in public opinion
toward forcible government acquisition of private land and the stalwart
government position on the same subject. In 2002, the city of New London,
Connecticut used eminent domain to acquire a number of houses in the city in
order to provide a construction company with land to redevelop.[26] In
a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the City of New London
and authorized the use of eminent domain. Unlike Tocks Island, this was an
instance of eminent domain being used to transfer land from one private owner
to another, but the cases were similar in that neither proposed project came to
fruition. The developer in the Kelo case failed to produce the funds necessary
for their housing complex, and the land which was acquired is now vacant. The
public in New London was almost universally and vocally opposed to the plan,
but their calls went unheeded.[27]
The facts and figures of Tocks Island, New London and the
various government uses of eminent domain that occurred between the two tell an
obvious story: government, both local and federal, often gets “the horse before
the carriage,” in the words of Warren F. Loney.[28]
That is, they take large steps towards an outcome they feel is eventual and
certain, but proves to not be so. They tend to operate with an apparent
disregard for the citizens they were elected to serve. This may appear harsh,
but it is based in fact. In just a tiny sample of the citizens displaced by the
Tocks Island project, a common theme is echoed: despite all of their struggles
and heartbreak involved in being displaced by their own government, they would
have been satisfied if their land had actually been put to the use it had been
intended for. Though it now serves as a popular and extremely scenic
destination for nature-seekers, it is difficult for former residents to see the
present value of their former land when it constitutes the tiniest fraction of
the sprawling DWGNRA. Was the taking of the tiny plots of land and the
destruction of the homes owned by people like Henry Tucker and Frank Kober
necessary for the enjoyment of those who now visit the recreation area that
their land is now a part of? The answer is, at best, doubtful.
The unfortunate correlation one inevitably draws between
the Tocks Island and New London cases is this: eminent domain, and legislation
like it, has had a negative cumulative effect on Americans, and American
government has been exceedingly slow to recognize that fact. In 1956, the
national mood was one that promoted any measure which might advance the country
economically, and as such the opposition to a plan to supply power and water to
a sizable portion of the population experienced almost no resistance. As the
nation became increasingly conscious of the effects that rapid economic growth
was having on the environment, importance shifted from economic prosperity
towards sustainability and balance. As the painfully slow death of the Tocks
Island Dam proves, any major legislation which will provide pork-barrel support
for politicians (regardless of their proximity to the area actually affected by
the legislation) will always garner some degree of support.
However, it is the social rather than the political
aspect of the Tocks Island project which is of greatest import. The distrust
clearly created between what can be broadly defined as common citizens and
their elected officials by the Tocks Island project and other tragedies like it
reveal an unfortunate ignorance of those with little direct political influence
and those who do. During the 1970’s, the environmental movement had tangible
influence in the halls of congress, and as such they achieved their goals. In
the current political arena, however, New London shows that money (in the case
of New London, greater tax revenues) has a direct correlation to political
influence.
With
this in mind, it is not difficult to see why the hundreds of mostly lower-middle
class citizens who resided in the area acquired for the Tocks Island Dam
Project harbor no small degree of hatred for their government. In his work
entitled The Story of the River Road:
Life Along the Delaware from Bushkill to Milford, Pike County, PA, William
H. Henn seems to capture the prevailing emotions harbored by residents of the
areas affected by the project. Published during 1975, Henn’s book (which was
self-published) was written both as a lamentation and a celebration of the
valley that he himself had once called home. Henn describes the project as
destroying “nature’s handiwork” as well as a “distinctive way of life” shared
by inhabitants of the valley.[29]
The overall tone of the work is captured in a poem named “Farewell to My
Valley” by Lydia Brodhead Nyce, another prominent member of the community
displaced by the project:
The river runs
so peacefully
Between the
fields and the hills,
Widening, as the
quiet pond,
Or
through the deep rift spills-
Her poem goes on to
describe the evolution of the region from Native American land to a logging
outpost and productive agricultural land:
As rafts of
logs, went swiftly down,
The fields were
turning green,
And farmers
worked hard with their plows
To bring truth
to their dreams
This type of lifestyle
was typical of rural areas during America’s formative years: industrious,
determined people using the environment that they were given to create a
sustainable, comfortable future for themselves and their families.
Of course, the march of progress inevitably made its way
into the area, with its proximity to major metropolitan areas like New York
City and Philadelphia making it a prime target for exploitation and commercial
development. Brodhead Nyce’s poem goes on to describe this change:
There highways
and great bridges grew
O’er our
peaceful valley,
And throngs of
people came this way
Fleeing
crowded alleys-
With this influx of
what Frank Kober and Brodhead Nyce describe as “city people” came new and more
destructive manifestations of prosperity:
So engineers
will build a dam
And we shall say
farewell –
But in our
hearts, there’ll always be –
Fond
dreams they cannot quell.[30]
What the testimony of
William F. Henn, Brodhead Nyce, and various other local residents of the area
affected by the project reflect is an unfortunate change in the social
structure of the region from an oasis of rural American work ethic in the often
overcrowded Northeast to yet another natural paradise exploited for the benefit
of residents of large cities. The homes and livelihoods of people like Lydia
Brodhead Nyce held so little value in the eyes of their leaders that they were
taken and destroyed without any serious assurance that they would be used for
the betterment of the “public” good. Perhaps Mrs. Benedict Pastorini best
expressed the emotions of her fellow evictees on the day in 1975 when the
project was definitively halted: “What are you going to do? You can’t fight
city hall. Losing my home was a very rough feeling. We all enjoyed being down
there. It was a beautiful area.”[31]
Of course, the economic effects of the Tocks Island Dam
Project, had it been built, will never be known. Perhaps the influx of new
tourism and tourist-friendly amenities would have ushered in a new age of
modern economic success to a simple, rural area in the prosperous northeast
United States. The area continues to be a popular tourist destination, though
the words of Bob Van Fleet’s planning expert have proved to be prophetic:
development and widening roads have continued to encroach on the natural
scenery and economically disadvantaged portions of the area near the DWGNRA.[32] The
area essentially remains under government control, and the application of
eminent domain in this instance appears to have essentially given greater power
to the federal government to influence the economic and physical fate of the
region. While the local government maintains holds a good deal of authority
over the operations of the park,[33]
the future of the land ultimately lies in the hands of the same entity that
evicted most of the area’s residents: the federal government.
Perhaps
the most telling account of the project’s cultural legacy was given in 1992,
the year that Congress definitively struck the dam from its budget. On July 19th
of that year, Michael Ruane published an article which contained an interview
of Leah Bensley, whose father, Isaac Dunlap, had been told 30 years earlier
that his tiny home, which he had built entirely himself, would be taken from
him. Today, only the chimney of Dunlap’s home remains, which ironically is at
risk of being leveled as part of a government construction project which will
widen the road near the house’s foundation.[34] Like
many who lived in the area, Dunlap was a simple woodsman who was proud of his
home and would not sell it for any price. He strove to, in the words of Lydia
Brodhead Nyce, “bring truth to his dreams.” Dunlap took his own life in the
woods behind his house several weeks after receiving the final offer for his
property. It is an event Bensely will likely never forget: ''It's just like it was yesterday. It is,
still. It's terrible. Sometimes I look for him to come through the woods."[35]
[1]
Irene Taviss Thomson. “The Tocks Island Dam Controversy.” In When Values Conflict: Essays on
Environmental Analysis, Discourse, and Decision. Edited by Laurence Tribe, Corinne Schelling, and John Voss. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1976: 38-39.
[2]
Gale Tellefsen, "Tocks Island Dam: an analysis of the environmental movement" (1992).
Lehigh University Theses and Dissertations. Paper 149
[3]
Kathleen Duca-Sandberg. “The History and
Demise of the Tocks Island Dam Project: Environmental War or the War in
Vietnam?” (2011). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).
Paper 30.
[4]
Deborah Bradford. “Tocks Island Dam.” Environmental
Action 7, no. 4, 4.
[5]
Tellefson. (8)
[6]
Judy Peet, A Bitterness Runs Through It, The
Star Ledger, 23 November, 2003, p.19. Via Duca-Sandberg. (2)
[7]
Thomson. (41)
[8]
Bradford.
[9]
Tellefeson. (16)
[10]
Duca-Sandberg. (3)
[11]
Duca-Sandberg. (4)
[12]
Richard C. Albert, Damming the Delaware:
The Rise and Fall of Tocks Island Dam, (University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1987 and 2005) via Duca-Sandberg.
[13]
Tellefeson. (15)
[14]
Tellefeson. (28)
[15]
Thomson. (44)
[16]
Duca-Sandberg. (97)
[17] "Tentative
Site of the Delaware Dam." The
Lock Haven Express, April 21, 1959.
[18]
Howard Rausch. "A Delaware River Dam Is Coming, but Not Soon." The Middletown Daily Record, October 16,
1959, Regioinal/World sec.
[19]
Bob Van Fleet. "Tocks Progress Could Turn Area into "well-to-do
Slum""The Pocono Record,
November 9, 1965, Local sec.
[20]
Bob Van Fleet. "Army Engineers to Open Tock's Office in
December." The Pocono Record,
November 9, 1965, Local sec.
[21]
Mark Brown. "Tocks - a Clash of Power in the Halls of
Congress." The Pocono Record,
August 1, 1975, Local sec.
[22]
Flip DeLuca. "Where Were You When the Tocks Fell?" The Pocono Record, August 1, 1975, Local
sec.
[23]
Jeff Widmer. "Former Tocks Residents React." The Pocono Record, August 1, 1975, Local
sec.
[24]David
A. Schultz. Evicted!: Property
Rights and Eminent Domain in America. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger,
2010. (74)
[25]
John Ryskamp. The Eminent Domain
Revolt: Changing Perceptions in a New Constitutional Epoch. New York, New
York: Algora Pub., 2007 (181)
[26]
Ryskamp. (50)
[27]David
A. Schultz. Evicted!: Property
Rights and Eminent Domain in America. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger,
2010. (160)
[28]
DeLuca.
[29]
William F. Henn. The Story of the River Road: Life Along the Delaware from
Bushkill to Milford, Pike County, PA. (Self Published), 1975. (2)
[30]
Henn, 226.
[31]
Widmer.
[32]
Brian Tarpinian. "Determining the Appropriateness of Automobile-based
Tourism in the National Park System." Park Break Perspectives: 1-8.
[33]
Dave Pierce. "After Dam Died, Park Was Born." The Pocono Record, August 14, 2001.
[34] Witkowski,
Wayne. "PennDOT: Milford Road Widening Project Will Have Little
Disruption." The Pocono Record,
November 18, 2015, Pike & Monroe Life sec.
[35] Michael
E Ruane. "Bitterness Lives Where Dam Is Dead A Delaware River Project
Lived Too Long For Some. In 30 Years, Many Lost Their Land." The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 19,
1992, Regional sec.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)