Ode to Jamey

I read two articles today, back to back, that gave me hope that we are moving in a progressive direction, then crushed my sense that humanity, as a whole, is even capable of empathy.

The first was about an Army Officer who came out today commemorating the end of the don't ask, don't tell policy. The 26 year veteran, Lt. Colonel says the biggest relief is that he will no longer have to deflect when asked questions as simple as, "What did you do this weekend?" It will, as he says, "take some getting used to." The eighteen year policy that codified the marginalizing of gays in the military, as of 12:01 today is history. We will look back on the policy and the general rule which preceded it and ask ourselves, what were we thinking? As the president said upon signing the repeal of DADT, "We are not a nation that says, 'don't ask, don't tell,' we are a nation that says, 'out of many, one.'" We have taken a stand on our national identity, our moral identity, and we are on the right side of history. The side that arcs toward Justice. Amen, hallelujah, and pass the biscuits.

Then, perusing Facebook, I found an article from Buffalonews.com. But before I get into that, please allow me to introduce to you, Jamey:

 

I didn't know Jamey. Were it not for the terrible tragedy that occurred on Sunday, I never would have read his name or shed a tear, grappling to understand his plight. Jamey was a gay teen, bullied from the fifth grade for being different, even before he could grasp the full complexity of his difference from other boys. I know nothing more about Jamey's emotional state than what was described in the article, troubled. I know nothing about Jamey's mental state. I know nothing about Jamey's relationships with others. Experience tells me that those who are closest tend to lionize the departed, but reading his mother's words and his friends' it seems like Jamey was really a nice person. 

Bullying is so stupid. It's juvenile and petty, but its effects can be devastating, especially to a heart that is already troubled, already struggling with internal battles for identity. Jamey was fourteen when he apparently took his own life.

What factor the bullying was in Jamey's decision, we will never know. The fact is, it didn't help hm. He had his demons and the bullying fed those demons, or it was the worst of them, or it was one small fish in an ocean of pain. What is certain is that pain could have been avoided with empathy, compassion. Jamey would have had fewer demons to fight, or allies to help him. Allies to guide him towards acceptance and understanding. I grieve for the boy in a way as though he was my closest relative. Here's hoping his family finds some comfort. RIP, Jamey.

My letter to the school

Dear Principal _____________,

I was concerned to learn that my son was handed a copy of the New Testament of the Christian Bible after school today. He was given this while exiting the gate and lining up to board the school bus to come home. To this end the gentleman, who I believe was representative of Gideon's International based on the copy my child was given, may not have broken any law, but I do have concerns about his actions.

I find the tactics of the Gideon unsavory, to say the least. While the Gideon was not on school grounds he was blocking the students' access to the buses, so they had no choice to ignore him before boarding. My son reported that the man put the orange book into his hand before he could ask what it was, then refused to take it back when he didn't want it. Further, I have taught my children, as many parents have, not to receive gifts from strangers. The content or intent of that gift notwithstanding, for a Gideon to aggressively hand my child something without my permission, teaches my child to ignore parental guidance and favor the guidance of a stranger who has best intentions in mind. Finally, I am certain there are safety rules that ensure students are not distracted while boarding the bus, that their school materials are put away so they may use their hands to assist them and prevent an accident. If a Gideon is making his way through the students, be it on a city sidewalk, that directly conflicts with safety rules.

For purposes of safety and to prevent the proselytizing of a captive audience, I hope that the Gideon is not acting with your permission. As such I am asking that you contact Gideons International and ask them not to distribute bibles at Rio Vista, citing school safety regulations. Should the Gideons protest I would like for you to contact the city regarding the sidewalk in front of the school where the buses pick up and drop of students, work with the Gideons to establish an acceptable area on public property that does not interfere with school operations, like boarding a bus. Also that you establish with them firm guidelines for students who do not wish to receive their wares. Lastly, on the off chance that the Gideons are acting with your permission I ask that you rescind that permission, in writing, immediately. If you choose not to rescind that permission, I would ask that you research religious organizations that distribute free literature from at least three other non-Christian sects and invite them to pass out their religious texts to bus riders who can't refuse them, providing equal time for all sects.

I am well supportive of the religious and speech rights the Gideons exercise; however, from the sound of it their expression may be infringing on the students' rights, which we can both agree is unacceptable. I look to you as the administrator of our school to enforce safety rules and protect the rights of the children under your care. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you as to how we will proceed.

Best Regards,

Al Rodriguez 

HER-story: The Story So Far

March, 2011 is Women's History Month. The theme this year, Our History is Our Strength, looks back to the accomplishments of women in the past. It celebrates achievements and reclaims accomplishments that have been ignored, disdained or denied. Learn about the tenacity, courage and creativity of women throughout the ages to find strength, to find role models for everyone.

I have a complicated relationship with national anything months. I agree with their goals, in general. I am a willing and happy participant. Many ... History Months are an admission of guilt, however. We, as a culture have overlooked major contributions by members of a suspect class either through sheer ignorance or outright malice. Though I can't claim to be a participant in the whitewashing of history (no pun intended), I share that collective guilt which I'm not certain is a proper motivation for highlighting and celebrating accomplishments. Further, these celebrations often conceal the fact that though we take steps toward equality, progress is difficult to measure and often backward momentum is overlooked.

So while we rightly study the struggles of women in history qua Women in History, it is also worthwhile to look at the current state of affairs. With that goal in mind I submit the following information about the state of gender equality in the US:

• For equivalent work women average $0.80 to a man's $1.00
  
• Both houses of Congress are represented by 17% women
  
• There are 89 countries with a higher percentage of women legislators (US rank: 72)
  
• Rwanda has 56% women in their lower house alone
  
• Countries where we claim to be nation building, Iraq and Afghanistan, have more women representatives
  
• Countries where we have identified human rights concerns, Cuba and China, have more women representatives
  
• Less than 5% of Fortune 500 companies are run or owned by women
  
• 7% of top grossing Hollywood films are directed by women
  
• 10% of Hollywood films are written by women

Ask yourself, do the accomplishments of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, monumental as they are, really show that much progress against such a yardstick? The fact that they stand out so much indicates that we may not be making the strides toward equality with which we credit ourselves. This concern is amplified when we turn our attention to the regress we've seen lately:

• The 2010 midterm election saw the first drop in women legislators since 1979
  
• HR 3, if passed would not only reinforce existing policy on abortion funding, but redefine "rape" so as to further restrict access to legal abortions
  
• HR 217, if passed would prohibit Title X funds from being granted to any organization that pays directly or otherwise funds providers that perform abortion services. Planned Parenthood, which already segregates goverment funding from their abortion services (less than 2% of their operations) would receive ZERO DOLLARS to cover contraceptives, pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling
  
• HR 358, if passed, would prevent funds from the Affordable Care Act from covering any health plan that provides abortion services

Worse, (only because legislation meant to restrict access to women's health services but would functionally increase unsafe, unsanitary abortions stands little to no chance of passing) we give equal attention, equal praise, to the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin as the aforementioned Clinton and Pelosi. Let me be clear, Palin and Bachmann are dunderheads who lack the basic knowledge in reading, math, geography, history, poli sci, and law required for the leadership roles they have/had.

So as we celebrate generations of accomplishment and progress, let's do so with awareness. Progress is slow and it is up to us to make it go faster. If we want our daughters to be as successful as our sons we need to fix wage disparities. We need to remove from office any representative who thinks he/she knows better about personal health decisions. And for the love of all things we must not--MUST NOT be guilted into thinking the Palins and the Bachmanns are role models. Anyone who quits the job with which the people of her state trusted her, for a reality show, is no role model.

... fiscal conservative

A trendy description for folks who are heartless, but don't want to seem like a complete jerk, is to say, "I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." I'm here to say that in terms of economic policy, there is no difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' except who will suckle at the government teat.

In the first place, terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are classically political, referring to the divide between those who support the despot and those who wanted to engage in self-rule. That isn't to say that the terms cannot apply to fiscal ideology, but the practical application of these terms points to a false divide. It is also to say that as an economic policy, the classical definition of 'liberal' IS conservative by nature. It is concerned with free markets that are tolerant of regulation and private property in the means of production.

What has become interchangeable with 'liberal' is more akin to socialism. But no honest, so-called conservative truly believes his ideological foe to be a socialist. That is because mostly we, the ideological foes of the so-called conservative, are not socialists. The ideological contrast is far more subtle than that, as we shall soon see. Further, there is far more agreement between conservatives and liberals than one might think.

A major plank of the conservative platform is a balanced budget. But this is voiced in terms that imply that liberals are unconcerned with balancing the budget. But consider that the last 'liberal' administration actually balanced the budget, and more, created a budget surplus which would have considerably reduced the national debt, another conservative plank. Contrast these actions with the mythological Perseus of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who not only ballooned the deficit/debt, but also grew the size of government exponentially.

We could go point by point debunking false distinctions between apparently opposing ideologies, but that would take some time. Let's then look at the one area that defines what is meant when we label ourselves (or each other) 'liberal' or 'conservative.' The question is simple: When the government writes its checks, who is the payee?

A conservative would have you believe that it's the poor. They are lazy and good for nothing and suck resources dry. We need to chuck out the illegals, drug test welfare recipients and for God's sake stop these public employees from receiving their gold-plated Mercedes that good-for-nothing unions negotiated for all those years ago. That is the path to fiscal health.

But they never say anything about closing revenue gaps, like by tax increases. They never say anything about reducing labor arbitrage, like by denying tax incentives to companies that send jobs overseas. They do, however tout tax cuts that clearly benefit the wealthy and say they don't need to be paid for. they will support deregulation of industries that will boost profits, while eviscerating vital protections of resources, human, natural and otherwise. All of this is free money, taxpayer money, that is vacuumed from the pockets of the common folk and put into a trough for the likes of Kochs and Goldman Sachs executives. When bailout money (read tax money) was being shoveled into the pockets of the men who were directly responsible for the Great Recession conservatives shook their fists and stamped their feet over efforts to recoup that money on behalf of the taxpayers. Now those same conservatives are shaking their fists and stamping their feet over taxpayer money being used... wait for it... to pay teachers and correctional officers!

To be fair, anyone protesting in Wisconsin right now will tell you that their fight isn't over money. It's about the right to bargain collectively with the state. The same right, the same fight, in the same state where the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime were practically born. But I digress.

The point is that the only true ideological difference between the conservative so-called, and the liberal so-called, is who is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding. For my part I would rather my tax dollars go to people who actually need it, AND in whose hands the economy has a chance to actually grow. Would I prefer a better way of weeding out the freeloaders that any subsistence program would entail? Sure. But freeloaders are a far cry from my tax dollars going to benefit millionaires who will employ me only so long as they can't get a better return from someone else, some where else.

of Defending the Indefensible

Jack Shafer doesn't get it.

Not surprising from someone who is as hardnosed a Libertarian as he claims to be, but still upsetting that he would turn such a tragedy into an opportunity to show off just how much he loves his freedom.

Shafer starts by declaring any call for civility an attempt at censorship. By his own broad standards, Shafer's criticism of Sheriff Dupnik is itself censorship. Can't a sheriff who actually sees the violence have an opinion, Mr. Shafer? He then goes on to say that vitriolic speech doesn't cause violence. Cause? perhaps not, but certainly gives comfort to to unbalanced and provides a reason, something that they can say made them do it.

He also seems to assume that being angry at the government entails hate speech and violent rhetoric. This is odd, as between the years 2000 and 2008, I can recall only ever being angry at the government and never drawing a target on a map, saying, "don't retreat, reload," or encouraging, "second amendment solutions." Anger and rage do not go hand in hand, but anger can certainly feed rage and the angry words we use can provide the fuel an enraged person needs to act in ways he only dreams about.

Mr. Shafer says he'd, "wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics." For a moment let's ignore his glib comparison of a drunken fight to murder and highlight that his time frame is bookended by assassination attempts on politicians and at least one bombing of a federal building. He says that targets have been political graphics his whole life, but doesn't offer much in the way of example. I, for one, don't recall this level of vitriol in national politics in my generation. The previous generation, however, did have some terrible examples of inflamed political rhetoric. It also had the assassinations of a Civil Rights leader, a senator and a president.

In my experience, vitriol flows from vessels that have nothing more than that in their reserves. Anger is one thing, but violence is what fills the void between anger and solutions. To defend the violent speech and vitriolic rhetoric as Mr. Shafer does is a commitment to ignorance and violent action. To be clear, NO ONE is calling for inflamed rhetoric to be censored. That would be un-American. However to ask people with no real solutions to tone down their noise is at its worst aesthetically appropriate. Further, it gives the unbalanced people no excuse for their actions.

of Crime and Punishment

"Do you think the sentence is fair?"

"Are you satisfied with the outcome?"

"Do you feel justice has been served?"

These are the genius questions local media, in their penetrating thoroughness, have asked me since the sentencing of  Pop's killers. The questions are senseless. They have no meaning. A frustrating example of how little the media attempts to understand the victims and are looking for their sound bites. They wanted me to say how angry I was or how the DA chickened out. But the truth is, anger has no utility and the assistant DA worked his ass off. He thought he still had a case even to the day the deal was made. His boss, however, saw differently and I happened to agree.

Fairness is not a concept that can be applied in this matter. There is nothing our family can receive that would compensate our loss. What then is fair for the defendants? They killed someone, so should they lose their lives? I hardly think they would find that fair. Neither would it comfort us. So fairness is off the table.

Of satisfaction there can be none. The perpetrators were as young as fifteen at the time of the crime. To put a child in prison for life is not satisfaction. The charges against the accused are brought by the people, not the victims, so the law isn't designed to satisfy the victim of a violent crime.

That leaves us with justice. What justice is now comes down to a number, the years spent in prison. For losing Pop, there is no appreciable number. No number can satisfy the pain with which my family still struggles. The number, as it turns out is 11, each. Eleven years, mandatory serving a minimum of 85% of that time with good behavior. To view that number as a function of the value of my dad's life is to approach the sentence wrongly. First, it is the maximum that can be given for the charge of voluntary manslaughter. The media says the defendants, "avoided murder charges," but in actuality they admitted to acting stupidly and viciously and quite unintentionally took a man's life. That appears to have been the case. And in that sense they have gotten what they deserved.

I am not satisfied with the sentences nor do I think them fair, but only for the reasons I've so far discussed. I have called the sentence a gift. Eleven years may not seem like a long time in prison for having killed someone, but it is plenty of time to turn around their lives. The tragedy, the true injustice, would be for them to leave prison older, yet no wiser. To go home and continue their aimless lives, without goals or rules. To drink themselves out of sense and good judgment and one day act stupidly again, destroying another family. Eleven years gives them the time to get an education, find God, write a novel....

One reporter remarked at how I could be so generous. It isn't generosity so much as hope that wishes this ordeal to be a life changing experience for them. The cynical me is aware that the odds say they won't come out any different. But why should I be led by the cynical me? I do not forgive them, but I can't remain angry and vindictive. It is exhausting to wish ill on someone and a bad example to set for one's own children.

My goal throughout this whole ordeal has been to represent my family with grace and understanding. To be grateful for the hard work of the detectives and attorneys who worked to resolve this matter. I am grateful for it. I have been more than impressed with the professionalism and tact that most of them have displayed. At the sentencing, however, two attorneys attempted a maneuver that I found tactless. They asked the judge to amend the ruling in a way that minimizes their clients' participation. It was a maneuver so devoid of empathy that another attorney later contacted me to say that he too was disappointed in their behavior.

The outcry of righteous anger is appreciated. It is, however, the natural result of two deficiencies: information about the particulars of this case and an understanding of terms like 'malice' and 'malice aforethought,' which taken at face value can seem straightforward, but are malleable enough in the hands of a jury. The case was filed under penal code 187, but would never have gone to trial as such. Being present at the preliminary hearings showed me just how difficult the witnesses, what few they were and what little they saw (or said they saw) was going to be. It was enough to convince me that a jury could monumentally undo the ADA's hard work. Instead of five people sitting in prison, some of them may have gone home to their normal lives before summer. That would have been unacceptable.