This past week, America celebrated and honored the death of two American heroes who could not be more disparate, yet, more alike: Aretha Franklin and Senator John McCain. Aretha Franklin was a soul singer who grew up in modest circumstances with personal and family difficulties, but used her music to make political and personal statements about this country. She was a well honored and recognized talent in the field of music. Senator McCain grew up in a family of Navy tradition, and went on to serve in the Navy during the Viet Nam War. He was a prisoner of war, and returned home to serve his country as a Representative in the US Congress, then as a Senator. He ran for President, and lost. I will not further recap the lives of these two people. There are others with more knowledge of their lives, and more talent who can tell you their stories. But they were American Heroes of the Nth degree, their service and love of country binding them together.
But, think about it, with such divergent backgrounds, how are these two people American heroes? They both spoke the truths about the United States, and their bodies of work were representative about the country as they knew it. And, I would guess, that the United States, as each one knew it, was in many ways dissimilar. So, again, I ask you, why are these two people American Heroes, and what is about this country that allows us to honor such disparate people as American Heroes?
I think it is because the life work of each of these persons embodies the idea and ideal that America is Great. I think it goes back to the origins of this country. It is not that America is Great. I am not sure that America was ever great. It is that the idea and the ideal of America is Great. The Constitution of the United States enumerates who are free people, and who are counted as 3/5th persons, which sets up that we interpret that certain individuals, such as Negro slaves, are less than whole people in this country. So we are burdened with an origin of this country that is not great.
We have a history of struggling with this premise, as in the War Between the North and the South, during Reconstruction, during both World War I and World War II, the suffragette movement, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights Movement and even today, that America is Great. But is America Great?
I would propose to you that America is Great when we have a great leader, who embodies the moral, ethical, and leadership values that we want to represent our country. When the idea and ideals of American are embodied in our government. So George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy might rank highly Ranking US Presidents. Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, not so much. I will not comment on Donald Trump, because of my personal prejudice, but also my awareness that sometimes, with history, evaluations change. Please note, that I do state that the personal lives of each President, who might be considered great, may or may not have been great. But his leadership qualities made him great.
But how does divisiveness, duplicity, disparagement, denigration, dismantlement of past policies, and disgraceful personal deportment embody greatness? If you or I were in school, a "D" would be a failing grade.
I want America to be Great. Again? I don't know, was it ever great? We have had periods in history when American performed at a great level. Such as during World War II with The Greatest Generation? But was America great then? No, discrimination was rampant.
So what do we do to make America Great? I do not think this rests with any one person or any one policy. I think it requires each and every one of us to step up to behave in a moral and ethical manner. In a manner that says "America is Great" not dependent upon politics, or policy, but that is dependent upon morals, ethics, the rule of law, and humanity. Not dependent upon our leader, who says America can be great because of its business practises, but dependent upon ourselves, who say America can be great because of our moral, ethical and leadership qualities.
There have been some recent incidents in which individuals employed by corporate America have reacted poorly to people who would be considered "in the minority." The first most notable incident was in a Starbucks in Philadelphia. Starbucks responded appropriately, with cultural sensitivity training. But why was this necessary?
More recently, a customer at a CVS Pharmacy faced discriminatory behavior by a CVS manager over a coupon CVS Coupon disturbance.
I believe the manager was dismissed, and CVS is taking steps to right the wrong.
I am concerned about dismissing the manager "out of hand" or "without due process," but I am thrilled that corporate America is stepping up to the plate to address ethical, and moral issues.
What really concerns me, though, is that while corporate America is stepping up to the plate in these obvious incidents of civil rights infractions, where has the government of the United States been?
There seems to be a governmental policy of "white privilege" being acceptable, and minority rights being disregarded. The leadership of our country uses disrespect, defamatory rhetoric, lies, and disregard for human rights in its public commentary and decision making.
I am sickened at the policies used by this government administration, that use tactics that can be compared to tactics used by Nazi Germany.
I am appalled by a leader who aligns himself with a known foe of this country, and attacks our long time allies.
I accept that Mr. Trump is our duly elected President, but that does not require me to agree with his rhetoric, actions or behaviors.
I am, however, heartened that some of Corporate America is stepping up to the plate to uphold the Values and Ethics of the United States of America.
This is what I posted on Facebook last night...
This is not a yes or no situation. It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis, which I believe our country is doing right now. I do not want a terrorist next door, but let's face it, they are there. There was a kidnapping of a Texas Tech student last night. The perp was not a political terrorist, but a terrorist never the less. We cannot make people suffer because of fear of someone they are not. I am not a practicing Catholic, but I am still ashamed of the way the Catholic Church behaved during World War II. Gov. Abbott declared today Texas would not take in Syrian refugees, and Catholic Charities of Dallas basically said they will not help Syrian immigrants in deference to his policies.
I wonder what Christ would do? I think he would take people very much on face value, and offer solace to the refugees. I think our country should help the refugees monetarily in other parts of the world, while continuing to vet Syrian immigrants who apply for refuge in the United States. I am not naive, but Christ said to love one another. He did not say love one another but only if your politics agree. I do not want us to let in terrorists, but people born in this country are being radicalized, so the ideas are not being kept out. I think it takes true Christian love to open our lives to the misery the Syrian refugees are experiencing.
I am now reading Hanging Curve, by Troy Soos. The East St. Louis race riots of 1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis_riot http://www.blackpast.org/aah/east-st-louis-race-riot-july-2-1917 were neglected in my education about American history. In general, I have known about the racial violence between Afro Americans and Northern and Mid-Western whites, and about Jim Crow laws. The acute awareness of race riots 100 years ago certainly gives an additional perspective on the events in St. Louis the past year or more. Personalizing it makes it so much more horrific.
It is sad that I have to say thank you to Troy Soos for increasing my awareness and giving me much more sensitivity to the history of race relations in St. Louis.
I am enjoying the book for its entertainment value, but appreciate the social value.
Do you watch Wheel of Fortune http://www.wheeloffortune.com/? I have, off and on over the many years this TV show has been on television. At this point in my life, I do not usually watch game shows in their entirety and on purpose. I frequently watch game shows as "fillers;" in other words the show is on the same channel as the next TV program I want to watch, or is on the same channel as the TV program I just watched, and I do not want to watch something else, until the next awaited show airs. So, I may or may not be paying close attention to the show. The same is true for Jeopardy http://www.jeopardy.com/.
One thing about Wheel of Fortune is how the role of Vanna White http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanna_White has evolved. In the beginning she was just the letter turner. The letters could have been turned mechanically, like the blocks were turned on Concentration. But some genius recognized the value of having a dazzling beauty perform this chore. I suspect that about 50% of the viewing public are as interested in watching Ms. White turn letters as they are in what the puzzle is. Ms. White has gone from being a mostly silent letter turner to an integral part of the speaking show.
Her job could have gone long ago: TV has the digital capabilities of turning or lighting up letters with no help from a person. But Vanna White is as much a part of Wheel of Fortune as is Pat Sajak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Sajak, the host.
So recently, and I cannot tell you when, I have noticed something on "America's Game." that I found very exciting and positive. When the game's winner is decided, the winner is asked who is cheering for them in the live audience. Contestants bring anybody and everybody: parents, siblings, children, spouses, aunts, uncles, cousins, best friends, coworkers, for example. Recently, I have noticed contestants introducing same sex supporters as "my special friend," "my partner," "my life partner," and most recently, a male contestant introduced his husband.
I think this is so positive that people are willing to acknowledge their relationships in public and on national TV. The Wikipedia information on Pat Sajak indicates he is a conservative, so I have to wonder how he feels about this. But it is what it is. 30 states now recognize same sex marriage. We have to deal with the reality that sexual preference is a right. And should be accorded the benefits, privileges and freedoms accorded to that right.
I think this is a good thing for the American Public. People with same sex "special friends" have been in my life as long as I can remember. I learned about homosexuality in high school, and got to know many homosexuals in college. As my life has evolved, I have gotten to know many more people who are homosexual, who are in various degrees of acknowledgement of their sexuality. And my relationships with them are in various degrees from acquaintance or co-worker, to good friend.
Years ago, I was in a break room at work, and my co-workers were disparaging homosexuals. Uncharacteristically for me, I was brave enough to say they should be careful how they talk about homosexuals, because they do not know who in the room might be one. I embarrassed some people that day, and made enemies of others.
Some people in my life have accusingly told me that my friends are homosexuals. My response has been "so." I did not care if the accusation was right or wrong. It makes no difference. Those people are right. I do have friends who are homosexuals, but not all of my friends are homosexuals. I make friends based on the character of the person, not their sexual preference. I have very few close friends, and I cherish those I have. Their religion, ethnic origin, or sexual preference is of no consequence to me. Their character and interaction with me is.
Isn't this "America's Game?" Not our race, religion, gender preference, sexual preference, creed, national origin, ethnicity, age, or physical and mental capability, or socioeconomic status? Are we not all created equal under the law? True we are all individuals with individuals talents and capabilities, but should we not all be offered similar, equal or consistent opportunities under the law? Sure our personal circumstances do not necessarily offer us equal economic, educational or social advantages. But shouldn't we have the opportunity to those if we can access those? And shouldn't our government be working towards making those opportunities more universally accessible to all citizens? Isn't this "America's Game?"
So, what I get out of the statements from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/john-brennan-defends-cia-after-torture-report/index.html is that he is acknowledging that there were inappropriate interrogation techniques, but they resulted in information that was useful in protecting our country. So, he is saying that the ends justified the means.
You and I know that that is not right. The ends do not justify the means. I understand that the nation was freaked out by the 9/11/2001 attacks, but since when did we become amoral? Even in the face of these attacks. When other countries around us remained level headed and moral?
It is my hope that my nation never stoops to this sort of amoral behavior again. However, we have a lot of cleaning up to do in regards to race relations, and some of that borders on, or maybe is amoral. Hmmm.
Okay, so I do not usually address really serious issues in this blog, but this is something I have to say. When the United States agents were doing "enhanced interrogation" I felt like this activity did not represent the moral character of the United States I want to love. Today, a report about these activities has been widely discussed http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/enhanced-interrogation-techniques-ineffective/.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA in case you did not know) https://www.cia.gov supports the value of enhanced interrogation because it provided intelligence that helped to keep the United States safe. Do I believe this? No. These are the same people who provided intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that allowed us to justify war with Iraq. The American public bought it, and it was a lie! President Bush's government needed to find a reason to retaliate against Irag for 9/11. As if the attack on this country was not reason enough.
Instead of saying "We are attacking you because you sanctioned, supported, aided and abetted the factions that attacked the United States" we hid behind the "weapons of mass destruction" façade which was a total lie.
And, when we went to war, we abandoned the moral character of this country and supported "enhanced interrogation" and generally inappropriate behavior by the United States Military ala Abu Ghraib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse.
I do not like war. But the character of the war in Iraq was very different from the character of the war in Desert Storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War. I believe that had to do with several things, but most importantly, our leaders at the time.
In my mind, although he is a Republican, President George Herbert Walker Bush was a man of honor. He surrounded himself with military men of honor: General Colin Powell http://www.biography.com/people/colin-powell-9445708 and Commander-in-Chief General Normal Schwarzkopt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr. to name a few. Desert Storm was conducted in such a way as I was proud of this country although I do not support war.
Not so the U.S.- Iraq War. Not so the "intelligence gathering" techniques of the CIA that included methods of torture. I am sorry that my country engaged in these acts. They are not reflective of the values of the United States. They are not reflective of the moral character of the United States. I am grateful the President Obama has made that clear.
I am concerned that we may have a future president who does not have such a strong moral compass. I want to love my country. I cannot love abuse of human rights.
I am against the death penalty. I will discuss that further along in this blog. I live in a state, Texas, that executes as many if not more people than any other state in the United States. I work as a contract worker for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). I am a social worker. I work for Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, which has a contract through Correctional Managed Health Care to provide services to TDCJ.
I understand that TDCJ is charged with housing offenders on death row, and executing their death sentences as prescribed by law. I understand that TDCJ is charged with these tasks. I have understand that TDCJ has to follow the law. I have every moral objection to the law..
I have an objection with the legislators and voters of the State of Texas who have voted in and continue to support the death penalty.
There are many reasons I oppose the death penalty. One is the very possibility of what happened in Oklahoma on April 29, 2014 http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308377785/botched-oklahoma-execution-mobilizes-death-penalty-opponents. The drugs did not act as they should have, and even the offender said that something was wrong. He later died of a heart attack, after an agonizing time of reaction to the drugs.
Over the past few years, drug companies who make the drugs used in the lethal injections for death penalties have decreased or eliminated the availability of these drugs. While I find that admirable, I am aware that these same drug companies make unimaginable profits on drugs that are essential to the lives of many people, sometimes pricing those drugs out of reach of the patients who need them, thus giving them death penalties. I know that there are some assistance programs from drug companies who help people who cannot afford their medications. But this is very complex and requires some help to negotiate the system. But, it is there
But this is just one of my objections to the death penalty.
My objection to the death penalty is on a larger, wider, moral scale. I think that no matter how heinous the crime, how despicable the person, how habitual the offense, it is not up to me or any other human being to decide that this person should die. I find "playing god" offensive to my sense of what is moral and ethical.
I think that I can say this with some sense of equanimity. I have dealt with people who are murderers, child rapers, abusers of the elderly, arsonists, animal abusers. No matter how despicable their crimes were, or how despicable their behaviors are, I am reminded over and over again that the offenders are still human beings. My faith, my belief in humanity, my social work code of ethics reminded me that they are human beings who deserve dignity and respect in my professional interaction with them.
It is not up to me to decide if this person lives or dies. That is beyond my purview as a social worker in my current job position. I know I could not serve on a jury panel in a trial in which the defendant faced the death penalty.
Years ago, I was doing groups at my place of employment, and a very controversial execution was in the news. The offenders in this group wanted to talk about that, and not the topic of the day, so we discussed the execution. The general consensus of these offenders was that it is not up to the state or the court system to decide the death penalty. It should be up to the offender. They were in agreement that some crimes should be punished by life and by life without parole. But they said it should be up to the offender if he wanted his life ended by a death penalty. They were not talking about suicidality. They were talking about taking a choice of death over life long punishment.
Frankly, I would have a better time accepting that option than the state mandated death penalty, imposed by judge or jury. I have met offenders who know that because of the length of their sentence, they will never leave prison alive. That is a depressing and discouraging acknowledgement of their life circumstances. It is understandable that they are depressed, and see no way out of their depression.
My job is to help them to find what their role of life in prison is: to help younger offenders deal with accepting or adjusting to incarceration; to help other lifers find their place and role in prison; to find their peace and place with their maker, to improve themselves as persons so they rise above the person who committed their crime. I don't know. There may be other roles these offenders might have to find or develop to address their reason for life in prison.
I am so inadequate at helping a long term or life term offender find his role for his life in prison. I cannot define it for him. I can think of things that might help: getting involved in prison ministries; teaching other offenders, especially in terms of good decision making and understanding consequences; peer support of offenders; changing thinking to be compliant with accepted social rules.
The whole point of this blog is that we, as human beings have no right to decide that someone should suffer the death penalty, no matter how heinous his crime, no matter how "humane" the administration of the means of death.
Life is sacred. Life a miracle. The giving and taking of life is a function beyond my capacity as a human being. It is a function of my higher power, my God, my maker. It is not a function held by man, although mankind acts as if it is.
