Tag: opinion

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Baby Steps

Baby steps first (Photo: Youjnii | Dreamstime.com)

I’m learning to walk again. It was odd at first. After more than two months of being unable to bear weight on my left foot after an April 13th fall, broken bones, and three subsequent surgeries, my brain had begun to rewire itself not to, under any circumstance, step on that foot — or else. Or else, what? I wasn’t sure of the medical specifics, other than it would undoubtedly hurt and it could hinder the healing. Incredibly cautious and afraid of the consequences, I have exercised great care in this endeavor and have become increasingly skilled at hopping on one foot while using a walker and balancing on the good foot while standing. Not skills I’d ever thought I’d master, but hey, my right leg is a lot stronger now. And I can challenge anyone to a standing-on-one-foot timed battle. Who’s up for it?

Since I was given the green light from the surgeon to bear weight — still with caution, and in an orthopedic boot — I’ve had to relearn, in a way, how to walk. At first, I was scared. Is my ankle going to collapse when I stand? Will the titanium plate snap out of place? Are fragments of my healing tibia and fibula going to crumble again beneath the weight of my body? And beyond that, it just felt downright weird to put that foot on the ground — tingly, as if it had just awoken from a monthslong slumber, burning a bit as the nerves reignited to do the job they’ve done for decades. Just like riding a bike, I suppose, but accompanied by some strange lighting strikes of pain and a brain that didn’t want to cooperate. 

Last week, it started slowly, a step here and there as I remembered how to put one foot in front of the other, how to balance on two legs, expecting it to hurt. And it has. After the first full day of “walking” — some with a walker and some without, still in the boot and a little off-kilter — it felt like I’d traversed the expanse of Disney World, stood in long lines, and suffered the sorest feet (or foot) I’d ever felt. But the most I’d done was walk from the parking lot into the movie theater for a showing of Inside Out 2. (It was a great movie, by the way. I might have enjoyed it more than my niece and nephew. Among others, the part about losing joy as we grow up got me right in the feels.)

In this experience of learning to walk again, finding balance, and rewiring my brain to physically move forward once more, I’m struck with the notion that this applies to other parts of my life. Much has changed for me in the past year — in nearly equal parts good and bad — and even more in the last few months. In more than the literal sense, I’m learning to walk again — in the same environment with new characters, new challenges, new feelings I have to feel my way through. Sometimes it’s like looking at a dusty old box of pictures and letters with yellowing pages, so crisp as you pull at the folds. There’s not a lot of room for looking back though — wallowing in the holes left by a sister that’s moved far away, a dog that’s died, friendships that have grown apart. It stings and burns and pulls at the heart strings in a way that’s not conducive to the forward momentum needed to inspire those steps toward the future. And a voice inside quietly says, “Don’t look at them. It’s going to hurt.”

If you can rely on nothing else, you can on this: Change is a constant. We may want to cry and holler and resist when it comes, but it’s inevitable. In embracing mine, and in relearning to walk — literally and figuratively — I’ll try to muster the joy and gleeful vigor that’s seen in a baby taking its first steps. The whole world is new from an upright position, waddling unbalanced to and fro, tripping and falling down now and then. Both feet on the ground, wide eyes and a toothy grin, and so much — a lifetime — to look forward to. 

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

One Day for Labor Day Is Not Enough

Photo: Redwood8 | Dreamstime

The state of labor this year is so fraught, so weighted with issues and problems, that a single day of homage and reflection doesn’t seem enough. It’s as if a year or more is needed to engage the issues, challenges, and possibilities facing American workers today. Consider the following:

Some 37.9 million Americans, about 11.6 percent of the population, live in poverty. But as sociologist Matthew Desmond has noted, about one in three Americans lives in a household with an income of $55,000 per year or less, an income barely enough to cover the rising costs of rent, healthcare, and food. Some 10.2 percent of American households (13.5 million households) have been food insecure, lacking access at one time or another to an adequately nutritious diet.

At the same time, organizations that best represent the material interests of working people — labor unions — are at an all-time low in membership (10.1 percent), down from 20.1 percent of working adults in 1983, when comparable data was first available. As studies have shown, unionized workers tend to make wages higher than those of non-union workers, and they tend to be less vulnerable to such corporate labor strategies as outsourcing.

But outdated labor laws and weak enforcement continue to hamper the efforts of thousands of workers seeking to organize unions and achieve fair collective bargaining agreements. Despite some important successes (e.g. the wage raises and safety provisions recently won by UPS workers), major employers like Starbucks and Amazon stonewall negotiations, and union busting remains a lucrative enterprise: a highly effective instrument deployed by many companies.

To complicate matters, AI has entered the workplace, threatening jobs in call centers and other places of employment — and remaining a contentious issue in ongoing strikes by screenwriters and actors.

Recent polling indicates that public support for unions (71 percent) is the highest it’s been since 1965. But it’s one thing to indicate approval on an opinion poll; it’s another to express that support in concrete ways.

One way, of course, is to continue educating oneself about labor issues and the way they’re played out in public discourse. With the 2024 election 14 months away, for example, one can scrutinize the words and actions of candidates who profess to care about working families.

Consider, for example, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott’s declaration, at the recent Republican presidential debate, that “the only way we change education in this nation, is to break the backs of the teachers unions.” What does it mean to represent unions in this way — to erase any consideration of teachers as both parents and as members of a community?

And what kinds of legislation, what kinds of policies, best represent the interests of workers — like those at Starbucks and Amazon — who seek to organize and achieve fair contracts? Consider the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which, among other things, would make it illegal for employers to force workers to attend anti-union, captive audience meetings. The PRO Act was passed by Congress in 2021, but it has since languished in the Senate. What will it take for basic legislation like this to become law?

Behind these questions lies the fundamental issue of accountability. How to hold candidates and public officials accountable for stances and actions that help or hinder workers? How to hold ourselves accountable as citizens, willing to take the extra steps to look beyond campaign rhetoric as educated and discerning voters? And how to look around our own neighborhoods — informing ourselves of local labor issues, respecting (even joining) picket lines, and supporting workers’ rights to organize whenever possible?

The need for accountability applies to unions and union members as well. In my home city of Los Angeles, where screenwriters and actors continue their strikes, 32,000 low-wage hotel workers have also been on strike for two months. In a city where exorbitant rents have made it impossible for housekeepers or hotel bartenders to live where they work, the union is demanding not only better wages, but, among other things, a 7 percent surcharge on rooms to help fund affordable housing for workers.

Strongly contested by the hotel owners, this latter demand nevertheless shows a unique kind of accountability: not only a union’s investment in fair wages, working conditions, and benefits for workers, but also an investment in the housing stock and well-being of entire communities.

This Labor Day was marked by requisite speeches, marches, and other forms of observance. And it should. But may it also mark a deepening, an intensifying, of the ongoing struggle for workers’ rights and labor justice.

Andrew Moss, syndicated by PeaceVoice, writes on labor and immigration from Los Angeles. He is an emeritus professor (nonviolence studies, English) from the California State University.

Categories
At Large Opinion

Age Before Duty

A striking resemblance. (Photo: Barol16 | Dreamstime.com)

Did you see the latest Mitch McConnell moment last week? For the second time in recent weeks, the minority leader of the Senate just “froze,” seemingly unable to move or speak for almost 30 seconds after hearing a reporter’s question. An aide came forward, grasped his arm, and asked if he heard the question. McConnell mumbled, “Yes,” but continued to stand motionless for a bit longer.

The 81-year-old McConnell fell and suffered a concussion in March, and was subsequently away from his job for several weeks. The reoccurrence of a freeze moment renewed questions about his ability to continue to lead the Republicans in the Senate.

The New York Times interviewed two neurologists who viewed video of the incident and said it could have been a “mini-stroke” or “partial seizure.” A spokesperson for McConnell’s office did not share any further details about the incident, including whether or not the senator had seen a doctor. McConnell has continued to insist that he will run for reelection. Ironically, that was the very question that sent the senator into his second freeze.

There have been similarly troubling incidents with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Now 89, the senator missed 91 votes over the course of several months last winter and spring due to medical issues with shingles, facial paralysis, and encephalitis. She returned to the Senate in April, but appeared confused when questioned by reporters. “I haven’t been gone,” she said. “I’ve been here and voting.” Nope, sorry, Dianne. You’ve been gone. Feinstein, like McConnell, is insistent that she will finish her term, which ends in 2025.

If you watched or read any right-wing media, you’d quickly get the impression that President Joe Biden is in worse shape than either McConnell or Feinstein. There are countless memes and deceptively edited videos on social media and conservative cable channels that show the 80-year-old Biden as a gibbering, dementia-ridden geezer. Fox News hosts ride this horse on a daily basis: Biden is too mentally incompetent to be president. We can expect this drumbeat to only get louder as we enter the election year of 2024.

Judging from the unedited videos I’ve watched of Biden speaking in impromptu situations in recent weeks, he does not appear to be mentally impaired. He talks in complete sentences and seems to have a grasp on the issues he’s discussing. He misspeaks occasionally, but the man does have a lifelong stuttering problem. His probable opponent for the presidency, Donald Trump, is only two-and-a-half years younger and is himself no stranger to verbal gaffes.

For the record, I don’t think we’re sending our best people for this job. It’s like we have two old guys climbing rickety ladders to a third-story window and voters are hoping their guy doesn’t fall off first. I think the Democrats’ old guy is by far the saner choice, but making long-term plans with people at these candidates’ ages is fraught with peril. Just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oops. Sorry. Maybe ask Feinstein or McConnell? Oh, wait, never mind.

And don’t talk to me about the supposed third-party candidates. Robert Kennedy Jr.? Loon. Cornel West? Loon. Who else you got? Tulsi Gabbard? Loon. None of them have a chance to do anything other than possibly throw the election into chaos. And we already have a pretty good shot at that happening with just two candidates. 

Trump polls as the most-disliked politician in America, blathers like a narcissistic fool, and is built like a pierogi — not exactly the picture of mental or physical health. But his base doesn’t care what he says or does or looks like. Trump could freeze in the middle of Fifth Avenue for an hour and it wouldn’t matter.

Biden has good cases to make on the economy, unemployment, prescription drugs, infrastructure, abortion rights, LGBTQ issues, and the environment. His policies are in line with the majority of voters, according to most polls. But even so, all it will take is one McConnell-like moment for the president and the hounds of hell will be unleashed, the news filled with “Is Joe Biden too old?” stories. At that point, the Democrats can release all the Bikin’ Biden videos in the world and it won’t dispel the fact that he’s 80 and looks his age. It’s going to be an interesting year, I’m afraid. 

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Lahaina and Global Reality

The two largest challenges our species faces together are nuclear war and climate catastrophe. (Photo: Iofoto | Dreamstime.com)

Rotarian Al Jubitz, founder of the War Prevention Initiative, has pointed out an ill-starred coincidence: the town of Lahaina was burning on the anniversary day, even at the very hour (11:02 a.m. in Japan is 4:02 p.m. in Maui) that the United States dropped its second nuclear weapon on the people of Nagasaki back in 1945.

We have no need to rehash the controversy over whether Japan was ready to surrender even before President Truman decided to use those two city-extinguishing “gadgets” (as Oppenheimer and his team called them in an initial euphemism, one followed by many others, including “peacekeeper”) to quicken the end of a brutal war.

What is infinitely more significant for us is what events like the Lahaina holocaust portend for the looming history of our future on Planet Earth. If Lahaina carries an echo of Pearl Harbor, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, it also ties together the two largest challenges our species faces together: nuclear war and climate catastrophe.

The two crises are unavoidably and intimately linked. The nine nuclear powers are plunging headlong into the renewal of their nuclear arsenals at just the moment they need to be finding novel ways to cooperate to mitigate global warming. The money and scientific brainpower desperately needed for the conversion to sustainable energy continue to be drained into an international deterrence system which, as we have seen in Ukraine, does nothing to deter the scourge of war. And should deterrence break down completely, no victory is possible for anyone.

In the case of both challenges, there is no impediment to workable solutions other than the lack of sufficient political will and the resistance of powerful special interests — though these are more than enough to accelerate our drift toward a twin apocalypse. This drift is perpetuated by a media environment where the indictment of a clownish con man for a dangerous but ultimately banal conspiracy to steal an election takes up a quantum more space in the press than more hopeful stories appearing at the same time, such as the children, exercising political will at its finest, demanding that the state of Montana live up to its constitutionally guaranteed environmental protections.

Even as we drift, a new idea has been pressing into our collective mind for almost a century: The fates of everyone on the planet are intertwined. This was always true, but now we know it both through the science of ecology and through the poetry of seeing the curve of Earth from space. We’re all in this together. We have only one small home, in the shape of a sphere, and a sphere has only one side. We are all on the same side.

What I do to conserve energy, or waste it, in my local situation affects everyone else globally, and vice versa. My security is only as strong as the reliability of the circuits and wires in all the nuclear bombs out there, only as strong the training and restraint of the people who maintain them at the ready, only as sure as the communication systems that may be vulnerable to error or misinterpretation, only as healthy as Montana’s willingness to phase out coal. The Golden Rule that appears in all the major world religions turns out to have deep practical, logical, and scientific implications that call for a profound change in the way we think and act.

Our radical interdependence has been reinforced by our explorations of deep space by the Hubbell and Webb telescopes. Everything on Earth, human, plant, rock, or the miracle of water, derives from atoms forged in the furnaces of stars. Everything is part of the same emergent story that is 26.7 billion years old. We all come from the same place and face the same fate together.

But our thinking has not caught up to such fundamental principles. We remain religiously sectarian and politically factional, blind to a more planetary vision of our self-interest. The hollowness of our avoidance has become a cavern in which we all sit passively, waiting for experts to find us a way out.

And there are experts. We know a lot about how to resolve our conflicts nonviolently. We know more than we ever did about how to communicate clearly, how to share our separate assumptions across languages and cultures to ensure understanding. We can model possible futures with our computers. With their help we can see how the potential of nuclear winter renders the whole enterprise of the nuclear arms race irrelevant at best, malevolent in fact.

But even the most knowledgeable and experienced establishment experts (as one of the most revered, Henry Kissinger, admits) have no idea what will unfold once the chaos of conventional war, say, between the United States and China over Taiwan, escalates to the nuclear level. There isn’t a single general or statesman on Earth who can predict what will happen, let alone control it to any one party’s advantage. This reality in itself points to the only solution: Survival requires us to go to war against war itself.

In the same way the global climate emergency also invites us to go to war against real enemies like rising levels of greenhouse gases and ocean temperatures, and to mobilize on the level of urgency that the allied powers did during World War II, when our leaders knew that citizens were waiting to be called to sacrifice for a larger cause. The decimation of Lahaina has brought out that spirit of cooperative good will — can we summon a similar spirit to prevent global conflagration and build a world where children can flourish?

Winslow Myers, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is the author of Living Beyond War: A Citizen’s Guide.

Categories
At Large Opinion

A Digression

This layabout lacks ambition. (Photo: Bruce VanWyngarden)

I have been living by myself for the past week or so. My wife went to a legal convention in Minneapolis, and then went to visit our grandchildren in New York. In the old days, I would have said I’ve been “batching it,” meaning I’m living like a bachelor. But now, as I type it, I don’t understand why there’s a “t” in “batching.” Or is there? If I weren’t temporarily living alone, I’d ask my wife. She probably wouldn’t know, but she’d have an opinion, and that’s all you can really ask for in a relationship.

And now I’m reminded of the phrase, “confirmed bachelor,” which those of you of a certain age will remember. My favorite uncle was a confirmed bachelor. He lived for 30 years or so with his friend Richard, who was also a confirmed bachelor. That was some seriously confirmed batching it. My father always said he wished his brother would find a “nice gal” and settle down. I never knew if he was really that clueless or just trying to hide the truth from his children.

Anyway, I digress. But, to be honest, this column is beginning to look like a string of digressions in search of a point. I hope you’ll bear with me. I’m on my own here. Except for my dogs, who are both lying on the floor in my office. Their lack of ambition is appalling.

Sorry, another digression. My bad. I will find a point. I promise.

So, I read this week about the Sentinelese Tribe, who for 50,000 years have lived on one of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean. They are the most isolated group of people in the world. They violently reject all visitors, firing arrows and slinging spears at any who dare approach their beaches. They killed the last person who tried to land, in 2018. It is thought that they are so violent against visitors because whenever an outsider has made contact in the past, the tribe was exposed to diseases that wiped out large segments of the population. After decades of various attempts at contacting them, the government of India has determined that no further attempts shall be made to communicate with the Sentinelese and that they should be left alone. Like me. So I can finish this column.

A friend recently sent me a video of a compelling commencement speech at Northwestern University by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. It addressed the subject of kindness: “When we encounter someone who doesn’t look, live, love, or act like us,” he said, “our first thought is rooted in fear or judgment. It’s an evolutionary response. We survived as a species by being suspicious of things that we aren’t familiar with.”

The governor went on: “In order to be kind, we have to shut down that animal instinct, that fear, and force our brain to travel a different pathway. Empathy and compassion are evolved states of being that require the mental capacity to step past our basic instincts. … When someone’s path through this world is marked by acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past its first instinct.”

I disagree somewhat with the governor on this latter point. Yes, there’s an instinctual cruelty that comes from fear — like that of the Sentinelese — but there is also rampant in our society — and our politics — an intentional cruelty that uses weak and disadvantaged people for personal gain, that weaponizes the fear in others, that mocks their disabilities, body shape, and speech, that demonizes skin color, religion, gender, and sexuality, not because of some primordial fear, but for selfish ambition.

Governor Pritzker ended his speech by saying that in his experience, “the smartest person in the room was often also the kindest.” In my experience, the reverse is also true. Dumbasses are often mean. Avoid them. Don’t vote for them.

So, all of this digression needs a finish. Maybe this quote from Kurt Vonnegut will work: “And how should we behave during this Apocalypse? We should be unusually kind to one another, certainly. … Jokes help. And get a dog, if you don’t already have one.” Or two. At least. You’ll never be alone. Or cruel.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Listening to Oppenheimer

J. Robert Oppenheimer (Photo: Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Attribution, via Wikimedia Commons)

A mere 55 years after his death, the U.S. government has restored J. Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance, which the Atomic Energy Commission had taken away from him in 1954, declaring him to be not simply a communist but, in all likelihood, a Soviet spy.

Oppenheimer, of course, is the father of the atomic bomb. He led the Manhattan Project during World War II, which birthed Little Boy and Fat Man, the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing several hundred thousand people and ending the war. What happened next, however, was the Cold War, and suddenly commies — our former allies — were the personification of evil, and they were everywhere. The American government, in its infinite wisdom, knew it had no choice but to continue its nuclear weapons program and, for the sake of peace, put the world on the brink of Armageddon. Hello, H-bomb!

War, the building block of the world’s governmental entities for uncounted millennia, had evolved to the brink of human extinction. Official government policy amounted to this: So what?

Oppenheimer challenged this official policy and shattered his career. Indeed, he saw immediately, as the newly developed bomb was tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, that Planet Earth was in danger. A team of physicists had just exposed its ultimate vulnerability and he famously noted, as he witnessed the mushroom cloud, that words of Hindu scripture from the Bhagavad Gita entered his mind: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

He had not opposed dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as some of the Manhattan Project scientists, such as Leo Szilard, did, but when the war ended he became deeply committed to eliminating all possibility of future wars. One of the first actions he took, a week after the bombings, was to write a letter to Secretary of War Henry Stimson, urging him to embrace common sense regarding further development of nuclear weapons.

“We believe,” he wrote, “that the safety of this nation — as opposed to its ability to inflict damage on an enemy power — cannot lie wholly or even primarily in its scientific or technical prowess. It can be based only on making future wars impossible. It is our unanimous and urgent recommendation to you that, despite the present incomplete exploitation of technical possibilities in this field, all steps be taken, all necessary international arrangements be made, to this one end.”

Making future wars impossible! What if American political forces had sufficient sanity to listen to Oppenheimer? Several months after writing this letter, he paid a visit to President Truman, attempting to discuss the placement of international control over further nuclear development. The president would have none of that. He kicked Oppenheimer out of the Oval Office.

Oppenheimer maintained his commitment to the transcendence of war, working with the Atomic Energy Commission to control the use of nuclear weapons — and standing firm in his opposition to the creation of the hydrogen bomb. He continued his opposition even as the bomb’s development progressed and nuclear tests began spreading fallout over “expendable” parts of the world. But, uh oh. Along came the McCarthy era and the accompanying Red Scare. And in 1954, after 19 days of secret hearings, the Atomic Energy Commission revoked Oppenheimer’s security clearance. As the New York Times noted, this “brought his career to a humiliating end. Until then a hero of American science, he lived out his life a broken man.” He died at age 62 in 1967.

“A key element in the case against Oppenheimer,” the Times reported, “was derived from his resistance to early work on the hydrogen bomb, which could explode with 1,000 times the force of an atomic bomb. The physicist Edward Teller had long advocated a crash program to devise such a weapon, and told the 1954 hearing that he mistrusted Oppenheimer’s judgment. ‘I would feel personally more secure,’ he testified, ‘if public matters would rest in other hands.’”

But of course the “black mark of shame” that remained stuck to Oppenheimer for the rest of his life was that he was a commie, and maybe a spy — in other words, totally anti-American. This was the basic lie used against those who challenged the tenets of the Cold War. The commission’s secret hearings remained classified for 60 years. After they were declassified in 2014, historians expressed amazement that they contained virtually no damning evidence of any sort against Oppenheimer, and lots of testimony sympathetic to him. The revelations here seem primarily to expose the government’s interest in covering its own lies.

It was this past December that Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, chairman of the department that the Atomic Energy Commission had morphed into, nullified the revocation of Oppenheimer’s security clearance, declaring the 1954 hearing a “flawed process.” Getting the government to undo its wrong was a long, arduous process, embarked on by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, the authors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. It took them about 16 years. They finally succeeded in clearing his name.

And while I applaud their enormous effort and its result, I also note it isn’t finished yet. This is more than simply a personal matter: the righting of a bureaucratic wrong done to one man. The future of humanity remains at stake. The U.S. government has spent multi-trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons development over the years, conducted a thousand-plus nuclear tests, and is currently in possession of 5,244 nuclear warheads, out of an insane global total of some 12,500. Perhaps it’s time to start listening to — and hearing — Oppenheimer’s words.

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Categories
At Large Opinion

The Remissionary Position

Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland rocks a kerchief. (Photo: @CalltoActivism | Twitter)

I wrote a column in late January called “Daze of Christmas Past,” in which I recounted how I got diagnosed with cancer — large B-cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma — a couple weeks before Christmas. It was a really not-fun holiday surprise. As a bonus, since the tumor was attached to the front of my spinal column, I had to undergo a reconstruction of my upper spine to stabilize it prior to cancer treatment.

By the time I got home from the hospital, on Christmas Day, no less, I was stiff, sore, using a walker, and breathing from an oxygen tank at night. I felt like I was 95 years old. It will get better, the doctor said. Be patient. Or a patient. I can’t remember which. I didn’t move around much for a couple of weeks, but I began keeping a daily journal that I cleverly called “Cancer Diary.” I was scheduled to begin chemotherapy in late January. The odds of a cure, they told me, were 70 percent. Not so bad.

I watched on television as Congressman Jamie Raskin announced that he’d been diagnosed with the same cancer I had. He was about a month ahead of me in treatment, it appeared, so I decided to keep an eye on his progress. He was wearing a kerchief to cover his newly bald head — not a great look.

I read a lot about various natural cancer-fighting foods and decided to begin each day with a bowl of Cheerios and fresh berries, and with liquid mushroom extracts — lion’s mane, turkey tail, and reishi — on the highly scientific theory that it couldn’t hurt.

On January 24th, I began the first of six chemo treatments — one every three weeks — at West Clinic in Midtown. After I arrived and had some blood taken, I was escorted into the chemo area, a large room with 20 or so matching reclining chairs, each next to a rolling stand holding medical drip bags. There was a wall of windows facing Union Avenue, the cars filled with people who, like me, had probably never noticed this building or had any idea what happened inside. A Wendy’s was across the street.

I was taking the “R-CHOP” protocol, a well-established treatment for large B-cell lymphoma. It’s a regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone, rituximab, and vincristine. So there. Mmmm.

The process began with three 40-minute drips: Tylenol, Benadryl, and an anti-nausea medication. The heavy stuff was to come a couple hours later. I was to be there “all day,” the nurse said. Two of my fellow drippees chattered ceaselessly on their phones. Others slept or listened to music through headphones. I guessed they were old hands at this. Six hours later, and I was no longer a chemo virgin.

Thus began the next five months of my life. I never had the horrible reactions to chemo that many people get — headaches, nausea, and other gastric thrills — but I got three or four days of extreme fatigue about halfway through each three-week cycle. My hair fell out in mid-February. I tried wearing various theoretically cool-looking toppers but decided finally to just roll with a chrome dome. Once my facial hair was gone, my head looked like a thumb.

I started writing my column again in late January and only missed a couple of weeks. I read voraciously on the Kindle my son bought me. It’s light and easy to hold in bed. My mother-in-law came from Spain to stay with us and help out until I “got better,” and she was a delight.

I had a couple of setbacks that led to visits to the ER and hospital stays, but I weathered the storms. The scans I took showed the tumor was shrinking — from an egg, to a walnut, to a grape, over the course of three months. Then, in late April, Congressman Raskin announced that “chemotherapy has extinguished the cancer cells.” I took this as a good sign. In the meantime, I was starting to feel pretty “normal.”

After my last chemo on June 5th, I got another PET scan. Three days later I got an email from my oncologist. “Scan showed remission,” it said. “More details when we meet.” Details, schmetails. I still have some follow-up treatments to get through, but apparently “chemotherapy has extinguished the cancer cells,” and I count myself a lucky man.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Creating a Cooperative World?

Why is this happening? What can we do about it? (Photo: Robert Hickerson | Unsplash)

“Go back to where you came from.”

This is basic American politics — what I might call spiritual ignorance: a dismissal of refugees fleeing war, famine, and poverty as global sludge, clogging up our way of life. So many media stories about the border — our border — begin with an unquestioned presumption. These aren’t individual humans fleeing hell and trying to reclaim their lives. They exist only en masse — basically, in the millions. And they’re going to be nothing but trouble for us. Either they want to work for a living and, thus, claim American jobs, or they’re simply leeches, utterly without skills, simply in possession of their needs, which of course will drain our resources. Go back to where you came from!

Look what happened last month, when New York City’s mayor bused a bunch of migrants out of town — oh, boohoo, too many for you, Mayor Adams? — to several hotels in Orange County, about 60 miles to the north. It just so happened, according to a bogus claim that made big news for a while, that in order for the migrants to get their living space, a bunch of homeless veterans, aka American heroes, had to be evicted. Yes, this was a lie, fabricated by a small veterans’ assistance organization called the Yerik Israel Toney Foundation, but until actual investigative reporting by the Mid-Hudson News exposed it as such, it was a kick-ass news story for the anti-immigrant right, hitting all the right buttons.

On May 12, the New York Post, for instance, reported: “Nearly two dozen struggling homeless veterans have been booted from upstate hotels to make room for migrants, says a nonprofit group that works with the vets. The ex-military — including a 24-year-old man in desperate need of help after serving in Afghanistan — were told by the hotels at the beginning of the week that their temporary housing was getting pulled out from under them at the establishments and that they’d have to move on to another spot, according to the group and a sickened local pol.”

Outlets such as Fox News (can you believe it?) and Newsmax ran with the story, then it came out that it was bogus and then some. The foundation had apparently gone to a homeless shelter and recruited a bunch of the men staying there to attend an event pretending they were veterans. Oops. Story retracted, media outlets move on. Nothing, of course, will change.

But what if …?

The essence of U.S. coverage of global immigration is that it’s simply an unexamined nuisance, which is, of course, growing worse under Joe Biden. And it quickly turns into a political “issue.” They’re coming in by the millions — kind of like rising sea water — totally messing up our wonderful society. We need dams and barriers, not to mention laws and tough guys, to maintain control over this flow, the reasons for which we are clueless.

So not only is there a blatant lack of humanity in such coverage; there’s also a missing question: Why? Why is this happening? What can we do about it? Asking such a question, here in the USA, is, alas, awkward, considering the role this country plays in the surge of global refugees. As Brown University’s Costs of War project points out, for instance, the United States has spent some $8 trillion on its wars in the Middle East over the last 20+ years. Ponder this number as you shudder about migrants’ draining of U.S. resources. These wars have killed almost a million people and have shattered countries’ social structures, displacing millions more. U.S. policies going back many decades, both military and economic, have also played a major role in the chaos and indebtedness of nations in Central and South America, creating turbulent living conditions for enormous numbers of people. As Azadeh Shahshahani has pointed out: “Nearly 24 people are displaced per minute. About 66 million people around the world have been forced from their homes.”

Note to Ron DeSantis: I’m not writing this to make you feel uncomfortable, simply to start opening the causal question regarding global migration. As well as war, there are plenty of other causes, from climate change to God knows what, and no doubt most people fleeing them would prefer not to leave their homes and loved ones.

Throwing the question of “why?” into the media’s immigration coverage will help veer the national focus beyond armed paranoia toward finding and participating in global solutions. It might even start making Americans aware that migration, problematic as it may be for the countries of arrival, is a million times more difficult for the migrants themselves.

Norma E. Cantú, writing at Tikkun, asks: “… why not dream on an even greater scale and advocate for a Global Marshall Plan … and for the eradication of all borders? The reimagined ‘world order’ would be one of cooperation and mutual respect.”

This is what you would call healing, and it’s naïve beyond belief, right? That’s certainly what those would say who cannot let go of their armed paranoia and hatred of outsiders. A borderless world? All people are citizens of the world?

That’s the future. Perhaps it is not yet the present, but the future has to start now, however minutely. The United States of America, armed and pathologically racist as it may be, is also a nation of immigrants. A good place for us to start creating the future is by recognizing that today’s immigrants are arriving not just with poverty and need, but with skills, with wisdom, with value — with much to offer this bleeding country.

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

National Insecurity

Photo: Franck | Unsplash

High-tech spying is in the news because of the one-sided, hypocritical debate in Congress on whether the popular app TikTok is actually a tool for Chinese government data collection on American users. The sensitivity of the issue has to do not only with rivalry with China but also the fact that the U.S. government has recently been the target of hackers. In November 2021 President Biden banned use of Pegasus, a powerful Israeli-made surveillance tool, by all U.S. government agencies. His order came in the wake of two developments: hackers who used Pegasus to break into the phones of some State Department employees, and investigative journalism that revealed use of Pegasus by many governments, democratic as well as autocratic, to break into the cell phones of political opponents and human rights activists.

As the New York Times recently found, not all U.S. agencies have apparently gotten the message; an unnamed government agency is said to be using the nearly undetectable surveillance device in Mexico. Meantime, the phones of 50 more government employees have been hacked. The U.S. case against TikTok, however, sidesteps two matters: the government’s own spying on citizens under cover of law, and the questionable political motives that seem to dictate the specific effort to kill TikTok. Congress members are far more concerned about the U.S. government as victim of spying than as perpetrator. We’ve been reminded of that with the top-secret documents hacked by an Air Force reservist that revealed U.S. spying on various allies as well as on Russia. That spying is widely considered legitimate, but Congress members prefer to forget the long history of government spying on unsuspecting citizens, a history that goes well beyond the Cold War. Various agencies — Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the State Department — have monitored social media to report on “national security” dangers. Leaders of Black Lives Matter, left and right political parties and resistance groups, immigrants from Muslim and socialist countries, environmental activists — the list of targeted groups is long. To that list should be added the mainstream social media — Facebook, Twitter, Google — that have given government agencies access to users’ personal information and communications. Their data collection probably exceeds TikTok’s, but somehow they are not considered national security threats.

Legislation passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress has cemented the government’s right to invade privacy, most recently to combat terrorism. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 permits electronic and other means of surveillance of U.S. citizens suspected of being “agents of foreign powers.” A FISA court, consisting of 11 federal district judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, considers applications to carry out surveillance and may issue warrants based on probable cause. FISA has been amended several times — the USA Freedom Act (2015) is the latest version — but has been challenged as an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty. That’s because catching terrorists was used to justify creation of a huge database that went well beyond counterterrorism.

The Freedom Act puts some limits on metadata collection but still has provisions for warrantless surveillance, for instance against whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden. Courts have rarely ruled against U.S. government intrusion, usually when national security is the justification. But then there’s the 2013 case in which the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, decided that Amnesty International lacked standing to challenge FISA. The case was brought against James Clapper, then director of national intelligence.

To judge from the virulence of the rhetoric, TikTok is one of China’s biggest threats to U.S. national security. Congress members actually seem to believe that killing off TikTok would be a major victory over a malevolent foreign power — a way to “protect Americans from the technological tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party,” as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy put it. TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese technology company, but its CEO claims the company does not share data with the Chinese government, has independent management, and is willing to store its U.S. data in the U.S.

Now I have to say that I have never used TikTok, nor do I even know anyone who does. But the roughly 150 million Americans who use it swear by it; TikTok has become an icon of U.S. culture. A number of countries, including the European Union, Denmark, New Zealand, and India, have restricted government use of TikTok or banned it altogether. But I have yet to see evidence that TikTok is channeling Chinese propaganda or amassing anyone’s personal data to be off-loaded to Beijing. Yet Congress members, and the Biden administration, are determined either to ban TikTok or force its sale, which the Chinese government opposes on the grounds that would harm investments in the U.S. The political lineup against TikTok mirrors the bipartisan consensus in Congress that is hostile to most anything Chinese made or owned.

Allowing TikTok to continue operating but ensuring that its database resides in a U.S. server such as Oracle would seem to be a reasonable answer for those who insist TikTok is a security threat. At one time the administration supported that idea.

But now we learn that Biden has “endorsed a bipartisan Senate bill that would give the Commerce Department the clear power to ban any app that endangered Americans’ security.”

That’s the authoritarian solution, but it would probably satisfy the China hawks, who love the prospect of turning public attention away from America’s real security issues. Their posturing on TikTok may fool some people, but far from strengthening national security, it reveals how insecure government leaders are when dealing with China.

Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Rogue Cops

Stop rewarding incompetence. (Photo: Jaromír Chalabala | Dreamstime.com)

General advice given to young people is to do their work well, lest they be fired from their job. Being fired holds a negative stigma and of course, for most people, can affect the likelihood of future employment, especially in the same industry.

Yet this does not hold true for police officers, it seems. Time and again we see police officers engage in misconduct of all sorts yet remain on the force. Even officers who have lost their jobs are often reinstated due to powerful police unions that negotiate pro-cop contracts. Worse yet, officers who have lost their jobs have been hired by other police agencies as if they did nothing wrong. Most recently, Louisville, Kentucky, Officer Myles Cosgrove, who was fired in 2021 for the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor, was hired by a neighboring county. Cosgrove fired 16 rounds after officers entered Taylor’s apartment for a narcotics raid on March 13, 2020. Her boyfriend, not knowing they were officers, fired back with his lawful firearm and officers returned the fire, killing Taylor in the hallway.

Neither Cosgrove nor the other officer whose bullet struck Taylor were charged. Because, sure, this makes sense — killing someone and failing to utilize the required body camera during a raid on her apartment should definitely guarantee one future employment as an officer. Ugh. But that is exactly what the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council voted in November 2022 to reinstate Cosgrove’s license.

The problem of officers remaining on the job or being rehired after engaging in terrible work-related misconduct is remarkably common. In August 2021, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that some 200 officers who had been fired or resigned amidst misconduct investigations were still in the state’s employ.

This is seemingly terrible decision-making on the part of the hiring agency, as studies, including one published in the Yale Law Journal found that cops who were fired previously are more likely to be fired again or to receive complaints of “moral character violations.” In another example, Timothy Loehmann, the officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland in 2014, had previously resigned from a suburban police force before being fired for numerous issues. The Cleveland Police Department evidently did not check his personnel file.

Eddie Boyd III resigned from his job as an officer in St. Louis, Missouri, after he pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face, then a year later hit another child in the face with either his gun or handcuffs and then falsified the report. No worries, Boyd was soon hired by a police department in St. Ann, Missouri, before moving on to — wait for it — Ferguson, Missouri.

Never to be outdone, Florida’s German Bosque, often called “Florida’s Worst Cop,” was fired for various misconduct than re-hired seven times. The last time Bosque was caught on body camera coaching a subordinate how to conceal the truth about a crime scene. Other allegations were for excessive use of force, misuse of police firearms, and stealing from suspects.

How is this possible?

First, there is no national database of officers who have been fired or who resign during misconduct cases, although it is clear in the case of Cosgrove that Robert Miller, chief deputy in Carroll County, was well aware of the officer’s past when he hired the man. In other cases, perhaps the hiring agency did a poor job of conducting a background check, however absurd that sounds when hiring for a position that involves the use of lethal force.

Additionally, as Ben Grunwald, a Duke University law school professor, noted, sometimes hiring agencies actually want someone with a “cowboy cop” reputation. For example, in 2020 in Brevard County, Florida, there was an advertisement seeking to hire rogue officers, with the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of the Police posting on Facebook specifically to the “Buffalo 57” and “Atlanta 6” that it was hiring. The Buffalo 57 were 57 officers who resigned following the suspension of two of their colleagues for pushing a 75-year-old protestor to the ground, and the Atlanta 6 were booked on felony charges for assaulting two college students who were Black Lives Matter protesters.

It is no wonder that community trust in police has been declining for years. A Post-ABC poll found in early 2023 that only 39 percent of those surveyed were confident that police are adequately trained to avoid using excessive force, the lowest level since polling of its sort began in 2014. Likewise, a 2022 Gallup poll found only 45 percent of surveyed Americans were generally confident in police, even lower than in the aftermath of the 2020 murder of George Floyd.

While there is much to be done to address the many problems with policing in the U.S., the fix here seems quite simple: Stop hiring and rehiring people who are not good at their jobs.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is the author of several academic texts in her discipline.