The Grim Numbers

THE GRIM NUMBERS

There are many things to be depressed about today.  Number one should probably be the fact that for the first time in millions of years, the average daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million.   And number two – a solid second – is the extent to which we now live in polarized societies characterized by widespread disrespect and fear.   Here in America, that is reflected in the trials and tribulations of Capitol Hill, where our lawmakers have trouble agreeing on just about anything (save, perhaps, for their love of the Washington Nationals).  But such polarization is hardly limited to America.  It is a worldwide epidemic.  And never did the extent of that problem become as apparent to me as when I read a report from the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project.  

If you want to see the horrific facts for yourself, go to http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/.  As the saying goes, “read it and weep.”  Yes, the survey is nearly two years old, but I suspect that if anything, the numbers are only getting worse over time, not better.  If you want a highlight – or should I say a “lowlight” – look at the table where Pew asked people from different countries whether they had a favorable view of Muslims, Christians and Jews.   The percentages of folks in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Pakistan and Indonesia who had a favorable view of Muslims ranged from a low of 72% in Turkey to more than 90% in all those other countries.  For Christians, it dips to lows of 6% in Turkey and 16% in Pakistan, but increases to 96% in Lebanon.  And for Jews?   The percentages in the above countries who feel favorable about my tribe are 4, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2 and 9, respectively.  Thank God for those loving Indonesians – because if not for them, one might think that more than 24 out of 25 of the world’s Muslims don’t like Jews.  

Ah, but we Jews have our own prejudices, apparently.  In Israel, the percentage who felt favorably toward Jews was 88 and the percentage who felt favorably toward Muslims was a mere 19.  Yes, that’s nearly 10 times as high as the proportion of people who liked Jews in Jordan, Egypt or Pakistan – but it’s not exactly what was meant by “loving thy neighbor as thyself,” if you get my drift.

As I think about this survey, I can at least offer some good news – of the fourteen countries surveyed, the United States was one of only four where most of the respondents had a favorable view of Jews, Christians AND Muslims.  The number for Muslims was only 57% -- compared to more than 80% for Jews and Christians – but still, that suggests that Americans tend not to dislike people because of their religion.  As I have mentioned before, much of that credit goes to President George W. Bush, who for all his mistakes as a President (and there was no small number), made the fateful and beautiful decision after 9/11 to reassure the nation that the problem was NOT Islam but rather a certain extremist perversion of that religion.   Most Americans, apparently, bought that message.

In reflecting on the above numbers, I must say that I am really upset with the 2’s, 3, and 4’s that the Pew Survey reported from the Arab world.  As a Jew who coordinates the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington, I am incredibly disappointed with my Arab cousins in learning about those numbers.  Clearly, this survey suggests that Arabs don’t merely disagree with Zionism or the conduct of the Israeli Government, but are flat out anti-Jewish.  You hardly have to be a historian to be scared when such figures are reported.

But as an American, I feel that my own country has some work to do when it comes to the issue of Islamophobia.  A 43% non-favorability rating is not acceptable.  That’s three out of seven Americans, which is three too many.   How do we get the number down?   Perhaps we begin by considering the constant references in the media to words like “Jihadis” and “Islamists.”   Jihad is a beloved word in Islam and it does NOT generally refer to a violent struggle, but rather to an internal, spiritual, and peaceful struggle to be the best people we can be.  Unfortunately, most Americans don’t know that.  Similarly, “Islamists” sounds so much like “followers of Islam” that you can understand why so many Americans associate the religion generally with violent extremism.

Clearly, we need to come up with better words for the sickening philosophy adopted by Osama and his ilk.  “Extremist Islam” or “A Perverted, Extremist form of Islam” don’t exactly roll off the tongue, so I appreciate why members of the media want to use shorthand in reference to that philosophy.  But we need a different type of shorthand – we can’t continue to use words that associate a holy belief system with a perverted, violent philosophy and not expect to produce a whole lot of bigots.

Ultimately, that’s surely the problem in the Arab world when it comes to their attitudes about Jews.  They associate Jews with the state of Israel, which is spoken of much in the same way that we Americans speak of North Korea – as blight on the world.  Personally, I like to refer to myself as “Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine.”  Yet to most Arabs and Jews, that expression is almost nonsensical.  It would be like saying “Pro Indian, Pro Custer.”   You can’t be “pro” both sets of enemies.  And the reality is, in the Middle East, Arabs and Jews see themselves as enemies, not cousins.  That is precisely what we in the peace movement need to change.

It is sad whenever you see people define themselves based on who they hate, rather than what they agree with.   All you have to do is turn on American talk radio and you can see that this problem isn’t limited to the Middle East.  In essence, our society is reaching our own milestone of toxicity – our own analogue of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide.  Let’s just say our society is no less sick than our planet.  So, if you’re into nurturing, rest assured – there’s plenty of work to do everywhere you look.

Reflections on a True American Success Story

                REFLECTIONS ON A TRUE AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY

When I was a student teacher back in the 80s, I told my class that the next Martin Luther King, Jr. will come from the gay rights movement.   It never happened.   Then again, it never had to.

 

Times have been tough for the progressive movement lately, notwithstanding the fact that their chosen Presidential candidate has now won the last two elections.   We live in a world where civil wars abound, and America seems able to do nothing to stop them, despite its willingness to lose billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the process.   Domestically, we are witnessing the kind of spiraling inequality of wealth that only a Marxist could have predicted a half century ago.   The middle class may soon be put on the endangered species list, but the poor?  They indeed will always be with us, and nobody seems interested in fighting on their behalf.   By contrast, progressive politicians have taken a shot at battling for gun control legislation.  But what have they accomplished?  Despite the support of 9 out of 10 Americans, they couldn’t even get background checks approved.

If the Biblical Joseph had been around these days, he surely would have dreamt about lean and ugly cows – but I’m beginning to wonder if his dream would be confined to only seven of those animals.  Maybe, he would have told the Pharaoh that while each of the animals in his dream represents a lean year, sadly, there were more of them than he could possibly count.  

Yes, we progressives have had some tough times lately.  And take it from a fed who is witnessing life under sequestration – there doesn’t seem to be much hope on the horizon.  But amidst all the darkness, we progressives at least can point to one incredible success story – the movement for gay rights.  And progressives are only now recognizing that this movement may have lessons to teach us about the other domains in which we seem to be consistently failing. 

So, how should we think about the way gay people and their allies have waged the war for equality?   Consider the following points:

Point one: this has been a bottoms-up movement associated with the grass roots, rather than with the leadership of particular individuals.  For decades, the movement made profound progress despite the fact that there was no one face, or even a small pantheon of faces, that was widely associated with it.   We’ve all heard of MLK, Gandhi, or Susan B. Anthony.  But how many gay-rights leaders have you heard of (other than just a few celebrities who have “come out”)?  Don’t bother to answer that question – it was rhetorical.

Point two:  when it comes to gay rights, there has been no one landmark event, like a Brown v. Board of Education, that symbolizes the end of the “old way.”   Instead, we have seen a series of small, gradual steps over a period of decades that have chipped away, block by block, at anti-gay discrimination.  To the extent there have been successes at the political level, they have taken place at the state houses, not on the federal stage.  Still, the successes have been slow but sure.  

Point three: despite those statehouse success stories, the gay rights movement hasn’t been associated primarily with capital buildings, court houses, or even mass demonstrations.   Rather, the heart and soul of this movement has taken place in schoolhouses and dormitories, and within families – friends and relatives have gradually come to recognize that their gay loved ones are worthy of respect and affection, and just as importantly, gay people have come to recognize that it is less painful to announce that they are different than to continue to live inside a closet.  

One by one, gay people have walked into the water and realized that it isn’t so cold after all.  And two by two, parents have looked each other in the eyes, asked themselves if they were willing to show their gay children unconditional love, and realized that the answer is hell yes!    The next thing you knew, in large swaths of civil society, gay people have come to be as accepted as, say, short people.   Given the choice, most of us tall folks wouldn’t especially want to be a short person, but other than Randy Newman, I don’t hear anyone talking about treating them with disrespect either.

Point four: the gay-rights movement was never shrill and oppositional.  I don’t think of any gay rights activists ever being anti-straight, the way I think of feminists who’ve been anti-male, or African-American activists who have been anti-white.  The gay-rights movement was critical only of prejudice, not of heterosexuality.  This made the movement less threatening and much more difficult to oppose with vehemence.

Take all of those points, reflect on the fact that this gradualist approach has been ongoing for a period of roughly four or five decades, and now consider that the movement finally does have two faces.  Ironically, given the amount of homophobia among black males, these faces belong to Barack Obama and Jason Collins.   

These men are pioneers: the first American President who supports gay marriage; the first openly gay man who plays in a major league sport.  And indeed, both are to be commended for their actions, which will surely advance the cause considerably.  But are they truly profiles in courage?  Think about it – Obama announced his support only after support for gay marriage stopped being a minority position, and his announcement didn’t hurt him in the slightest politically.  In fact, it only helped his standing with progressives.  As for Jason Collins, with few exceptions, he has received only praise and encouragement for his announcement.  The few who have taken him on publicly, like Dolphins wide receiver Mike Wallace or ESPN talking head Chris Broussard, have been roundly criticized in the media as troglodytes.   

The truth is that Collins is just another openly gay man – except that he has earned over $30 million in the last decade and is widely viewed as a hero.   I think he’ll be OK.

Barack Obama and Jason Collins jumped into the water with every reason to believe it was warm.  And it was warmed up by millions of courageous and compassionate people – gay and straight -- who came before them.  In each case, they saw gay rights as no less fundamental than any other type of civil right.  They knew that history was on their side.   They knew that the only way their movement could stall is if they went out of their way to piss off their opponents or force mega-wars before the battlefields were properly prepared.  They were confident, patient, and loving.  For them, their fight was about working FOR justice, not AGAINST the source of injustice.  You can hear the difference when you compare the gay-rights advocate to, say, many of those who relentlessly push BDS (Boycott, Divestiture, Sanctions) against Israel like it was the only imperfect regime in the world, or those early feminists who spoke about “maleness” like it was a form of herpes.

I recognize that some folks have decided to take the fight for marriage equality through the federal courts.  They think the time is right.   Being a litigator myself, however, I know that court battles are inherently unpredictable.  But I also know this: the battle for gay rights has proceeded so wisely for so long, that I’m not sure anyone now can stem the tide of progress.  Not a conservative jurist, not a shrill activist, and not even a smoothed-tongued, right-wing demagogue.

            No, my friends, nothing can stop the fight for gay rights from being an honest-to-God American success story.  The only mystery is whether progressives will focus on how this battle was waged and apply the lessons that are there for the taking.   We had better do it.  Because, God knows, there are precious few success stories to learn from these days.

SEQUESTRATION FOLLIES

            So, I have a question, and it is purely rhetorical.   Which political party is looking out for the poor?  

            The answer, quite obviously, is neither one.   And now that our society is moving into the “new normal” of governmental austerity and stagnating wealth/income for the majority of Americans, this lack of a progressive party is becoming an increasingly tragic problem.

            For those of you who answered “the Democrats” to the question above, you might want to re-consider based on the events this week on Capitol Hill.   Here’s the background -- our representatives have been presented with the challenge of dealing with the budget crisis commonly known as “sequestration.”  Unless they can figure out a solution, one government program after another will be significantly weakened.   And this can go on for a while.   Given how much the poor depend on the government, you can only imagine the kind of devastating impact that sequestration might have on those communities.

            Prior to this week, though, it appeared that the poor and their advocates had a trump card.  They could count on the fact that the federal government does not only benefit them.  All of us depend on the government, even the affluent.  The feds employ the airport personnel that rich people need to make their business travel efficient.  And the feds employ the meat inspectors on which the wealthy depend to evaluate their filet mignon.  So, if there were a progressive political party around, it could “go on strike” by saying that the rich people can’t have their business flights or filet mignon unless we take care of after-school centers and Head Start programs.

            That sounds like a plan, right?   The Democrats control the Senate, the Democrats are the party of progressives, and all good progressives know that historically, strikes have proven crucial in protecting the rights of the masses.  Besides, in this case, you don’t even need to call what I’m talking about a “strike.”  All the Democrats had to do is tell the folks on the other side of the aisle that if you scratch the back of our special interests (the needy), we’ll scratch the back of business travelers and meat packers.

But who am I kidding?   Once the fat-cat lobbyists got into their act, Congress was primed to differentiate between government programs in terms of which ones we need and which ones we don’t.  Ironically, the programs for the so-called “needy” were the ones we decided we didn’t need after all.   Convenient flights for business travelers?  Check.   Steak for business lunches?   Check.   Teachers for low-income preschoolers?   Well … maybe we can live without them, don’t you think?   Those teachers are bearing the brunt of the budget cuts.

So what are we left with?  Questions, questions, questions.  

            Where were the Democratic Senators in all this?   Where was the outrage?   Where was the threat of a filibuster?  Or is that threat only available for Republicans?

And what about the “liberal media”?  Are they shocked by all this?  Or are they just shell-shocked (by the apparent death of liberalism in a nation with a two-term Democratic President)?

   Who is speaking up for the folks who can’t afford to fly, but can afford even less for their preschool children to go without a public education?   

And finally, in the immortal words of Pink Floyd, “Is there anybody out there?”   

            Come to think of it, that last one is the only question I keep asking.

Heroes, Criminals and Cowards

HEROES, CRIMINALS AND COWARDS

            We’ve seen it all this week, haven’t we?  The good, the bad and the ugly.  

            I think we can all agree on the “good.”  I’m referring to the first responders up in Boston who put their own lives on the line so that our collective national nightmare could finally come to rest.  

Do you remember that classic Seinfeld episode, “The Fire,” when George Costanza noticed a fire breaking out during a children’s birthday party, and proceeded to sprint out of the house, pushing aside children, seniors, and even the clown in the process?   Our first responders are the anti-Costanzas.  They will gladly put their own lives on the line to protect everyone else’s – and they’ll do it for little pay and no fanfare.  Hardworking, risk-taking, selfless and anonymous – those are our society’s greatest heroes. 

            Twelve years ago in 9/11, we all saw exactly what can happen when things go horribly wrong for our first responders.   This week, thankfully, they fared better.  But we still must not forget the heroism of M.I.T. policeman Sean Collier, who died in the line of duty, or his friend, transit officer Richard Donohue, who was seriously injured.  These men should become reminders of how fortunate we are that so many people are still willing to serve as police officers, fire fighters, soldiers, or security guards.  We don’t particularly celebrate them, remunerate them, or even pay much attention to them.   Instead, we take them for granted.   But my guess is that they wouldn’t mind being taken for granted.  They want us to go about our lives without having to worry about the constant threats that reside beneath the surface.  They know full well all of the dangers that lurk around the bend, but they want us to feel secure nonetheless.  They’re more than happy to tackle those threats themselves.   And why?   Because they are heroes.  This week, their behavior doesn’t need any fuller explanation than that.

            Men like Collier and Donohue are profiles in courage.  So, too, are men like the Tsarnaev Brothers.   I have no trouble calling them courageous.  Of course, I also have no trouble calling them evil sociopaths, whose spirit has less value to me than that of an ant.   

            In holding that perspective, I am probably in the minority.  Many would point out that even “sick” men like the Tsarnaev Brothers are human beings, made in the “image of God”, who for that reason alone deserve to be treated with respect – and should never be compared unfavorably to a mere insect.  I won’t comment as to whether, as a legal matter, they should be granted the same “rights” that are available to other human beings.  But as a moral matter, I see these two young men not much differently than I see cancer cells.  When all is said and done, their purpose on this planet is to destroy it – life, security, happiness, you name it.  They have chosen the path of hatred, cruelty, and even murder.  So while, as an abstract matter, I can acknowledge that they are cut from the same divine cloth as the rest of us … I can say the same thing about the cancer cell, or the ant.   And personally, if we were allowed in the future to have far more ants and far fewer people like the Tsarnaev Brothers, I’d be thrilled.

As for my claim that these two brothers are courageous, I recognize that this goes against conventional wisdom.   It has become de rigueur to refer to terrorists as “cowards.”  When that started I don’t know, but I was recently listening to a tape of Bill Clinton’s post-OK City bombing press conference, and sure enough – he referred to the then-unknown bomber as a “coward.”  Similarly, that was the ubiquitous term that the media used to refer to the 9/11 perpetrators.   And it was trotted out again this week in Boston.

Are these mass murderers really cowards?  By engaging in these acts of unfathomable brutality, don’t these terrorists immediately become marked men?   Don’t they immediately risk their lives and their freedom for their cause?   And regardless of what we think of that “cause” – and I cannot possibly think less of it – doesn’t it mangle the English language to say that these people lack courage?  That, it seems, is the one classical virtue they do possess, though I should add that their stories are grim lessons in how courage, when not coupled with empathy and rationality, is actually a vice.   

            I’ve been wondering this week why our politicians and media figures persist in using the “coward” label to refer to terrorists.  Why is that word used above all others?   The answer, I believe, stems from the fact that an act of terror is an act of war.   And in a nation like America,  whose military is second to none in size and which is geographically removed from the world’s major hotspots, terrorist acts are the type of warfare that threaten us the most.  As a result, when we are hit, our immediately reaction is to lurch into macho mode.   We are “tough,” we are “strong,” we are “resolute.”  And our enemies?  They are “gutless” and “weak,” and we will “destroy” them.  

            The problem with this talk is that it skews our understanding of the situation.  It causes us to underestimate terrorists when we don’t even acknowledge that they have the courage of their convictions.  And perhaps even more importantly, it prevents us from dealing with some of the root causes of terror.  When you take a world with modern weapons technology and throw in an ample supply of seemingly never-ending international conflicts, you’re going to have terror.   So why not redouble our efforts to work for peace?   The answer is that every time a terrorist act occurs, we don’t speak with the voices of peaceniks – we don’t chastise our enemies for their lack of compassion, or talk about how we will be resolute in working for just resolutions of international disputes.  No, we call the enemies cowards, and talk about how big and tough we are.   And so, the cycle continues – more mayhem, more macho responses, and no lessons get learned.

            What do you say, for just a few minutes today, we stop reveling in our toughness.  What do you say, for just a few minutes, we start thinking about compassion.   I won’t ask that we feel that emotion for the Tsarnaev Brothers – that may be too much to ask.   But I’m thinking about all the innocent people around the world who are being victimized by violence and oppression.  Can’t we do something to help them?   In fact, isn’t it our obligation to try?   Maybe we’re not heroes, like the first responders, but even if we’re unwilling to risk our lives, can we not devote a little time to a cause that is grounded in compassion?  Think about it.

            So, I’ve spoken about the good (the heroes) and the bad (the criminals).  But what about the ugly?  We’ve seen that pop up this week as well.   And as is so often the case lately, we’ve seen it pop up in none other than Capitol Hill.

            Those who read my post last week could probably tell that I honestly expected background-check legislation to pass.  I assumed that since 90 percent of the American public supported it and since the powers-that-be were allowing it to come up for a vote, how could it fail?  

            Silly me.  I should have realized that when it comes to taking on the NRA, legislators in Washington don’t vote their conscience.  I should have realized that given the current crop of homo sapiens who populate the nation’s capital, anything the NRA will oppose is D.O.A. – unless and until the American public demonstrates during an election that they will vote out all moderates who side with the NRA. 

            The focus of my attention when it comes to the background-check vote is precisely the moderates in the Senate.  Unlike some, I don’t begrudge the hard-right Senators for their decision to oppose the bill.   I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are wildly pro-gun, they are legitimately concerned that a victory for the gun-control movement on this bill would have emboldened that movement, and for that reason alone, they needed to oppose the measure.   In other words, I will grant them what I granted the Tsarnaev Brothers – that they have the courage of their convictions.  

            My issue is with those folks who truly supported the bill but dared not vote against it, lest the NRA target them during primary season.   According to conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, there were 15 Senators who would have voted for the bill had the NRA not “scored” it.   That’s a polite way of saying that 1/3 of the Senators who blocked the bill are, in fact, cowards.  They – and not the gun-zealots who joined them – are the true villains of the vote.  They are the ones who have decided to put their own re-election above not only the views of their constituents but their own consciences.   

            So, who are these fifteen men and women?  I honestly don’t know.  And perhaps I don’t want to know, because if I did, I’d probably throw money against them in the next election, and most likely, they’d win anyway.  So it is with incumbents in Congress who are consumed above all else with self-preservation.   But let’s not forget what these “statesmen” accomplished this week.  They pulled a Costanza.  They saw a potential fire (the NRA taking them on), got the hell out of harm’s way, and in the process, made sure that children, seniors, and maybe even a clown or two, will get shot and killed in the future because criminals will continue to be able to buy guns without a background check.   

            When Costanza did it, it was funny.  When Senators do it, it is just plain ugly.