Stand, and Remember

I just heard that Glenn Beck has admonished John Lewis for "comparing" himself to "civil rights activists."

He is not worth my time, Glenn Beck, yet he requires attention because of the uncritical thinkers who are following him.

John Lewis, though, needs no defense from anyone; He need only stand, as he has always stood.

The rest of us, however? We are required to remember, and to share those memories with an abundant spirit.

From The Biography of John Lewis:

He was born the son of sharecroppers on February 21, 1940, outside of Troy, Alabama. He grew up on his family's farm and attended segregated public schools in Pike County, Alabama. As a young boy, he was inspired by the activism surrounding the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which he heard on radio broadcasts. In those pivotal moments, he made a decision to become a part of the Civil Rights Movement. Ever since then, he has remained at the vanguard of progressive social movements and the human rights struggle in the United States.

As a student at Fisk University, John Lewis organized sit-in demonstrations at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, Tennessee. In 1961, he volunteered to participate in the Freedom Rides, which challenged segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South. Lewis risked his life on those Rides many times by simply sitting in seats reserved for white patrons. He was also beaten severely by angry mobs and arrested by police for challenging the injustice of Jim Crow segregation in the South.

During the height of the Movement, from 1963 to 1966, Lewis was named Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which he helped form. SNCC was largely responsible for organizing student activism in the Movement, including sit-ins and other activities.

While still a young man, John Lewis became a nationally recognized leader. By 1963, he was dubbed one of the Big Six leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. (The others were Whitney Young, A. Phillip Randolph, Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer and Roy Wilkins). At the age of 23, he was an architect of and a keynote speaker at the historic March on Washington in August 1963.

In 1964, John Lewis coordinated SNCC efforts to organize voter registration drives and community action programs during the Mississippi Freedom Summer. The following year, Lewis helped spearhead one of the most seminal moments of the Civil Rights Movement. Hosea Williams, another notable Civil Rights leader, and John Lewis led over 600 peaceful, orderly protestors across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965. They intended to march from Selma to Montgomery to demonstrate the need for voting rights in the state. The marchers were attacked by Alabama state troopers in a brutal confrontation that became known as "Bloody Sunday." News broadcasts and photographs revealing the senseless cruelty of the segregated South helped hasten the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and serious injuries, John Lewis remained a devoted advocate of the philosophy of nonviolence. After leaving SNCC in 1966, he continued his commitment to the Civil Rights Movement as Associate Director of the Field Foundation and his participation in the Southern Regional Council's voter registration programs. Lewis went on to become the Director of the Voter Education Project (VEP). Under his leadership, the VEP transformed the nation's political climate by adding nearly four million minorities to the voter rolls.

Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.

Failure to Educate: Chiswick's Corollary of Classroom Co-Deficiencies

This post crosses the line into the unethical.

I don't bear the burden of HIPAA -- the only license I have is a License to Teach; The only legal threat to a teacher in these parts is that of being sued for "Failure to Educate." (I am not kidding. It has happened several times in the urban blight of a system where I last worked.)

Hmmm. Another ethical dilemma -- probably of little interest to most. The public school system teachers with whom I labored there at the end of my illustrious career talked about the "Failure to Educate" laws as if they were personal affronts. In part, I understand -- our system had fielded its share of trivial lawsuits brought by guilt-ridden parents. What is always hard to understand is why there are so many settlements. Sometimes it seems like we, as in "all of us," are too world-weary to see the truth to its end, to its real expression. We would rather just settle.

It could be that you don't know what I mean.

On the other hand, the laws' hand, Failure to Educate charges have also been used for a greater good, as in the case filed by the NAACP in Florida. Individual cases can also have a wide range of impact, as in this ruling for compensatory education for a Georgia student:

On March 20, 2007, the District Court of Georgia ordered the Atlanta Independent School System to pay Jarron Draper's tuition at a private special education school for four years, or until he graduated with a diploma from high school, as prospective compensatory education for their persistent failure to educate him.

Most viable lawsuits cite the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) under which disabled students are promised a free and appropriate public education. It is frequently invoked at graduation age by parents of students who have, for example, not learned to read, despite 12 years of Special Education designed to deal with their dyslexia, ADD, or other disability. Often the IEP process is under fire -- whether and how it was done, whether and how it was implemented. Amplified, Failure to Educate cases raise larger questions of access to education and fairness.

Lest anyone think this phenomenon is peculiar to the Deep South of the United States (and, yes, I admit to thinking that), please note that it also is/was a frequent occurrence in England and Wales. Even New Jersey!

"Incorrect" usage usually involves allegations about instructional competency. It rarely goes to trial, but just as any allegation of professional incompetence does, it wrecks good teachers' careers. I know that there are bad, very bad, even incredibly awful, teachers -- somehow, they don't seem to get ferreted out. Oddly enough, they tend to be the 20-30 year veterans who have little training in their subject matter, but loads of experience getting by, and many connections "downtown." Following some rule that I'm sure has been comically designated (Thelma's Third Law of Diminished Talent, Chiswick's Corollary of Classroom Co-Deficiencies), these veterans often end their careers as Principals or Administrators.

Dodge-artists, shifty sorts, they are responsible for the calibre of College Freshmen who end up in my Brother-Unit's university classroom, hopelessly remedial.

Well. I have done it again. The intended subject of this post has been successfully obstructed. Yet, it must be done, ethical challenge or not. Later. It has to do with the ketamine coma... again.

Rush, Shut the Hell Up

Margaret and Helen, each, never cease to amaze me and ease the tension in my jaw, at the same time.

Helen Philpot wrote this today:

Margaret dear, I need your help sorting all this out. Rush Limbaugh has a daily audience of 14 million morons- give or take a few rednecks - Howard excluded of course. So are we to believe that they all want Obama to fail? Do I have that right? I am a little confused by this recent turn of events because weren’t these the same peckerwoods who got so upset a few years back when a famous country western singer told about 2,000 people at a concert in London that she was ashamed that George Bush was from her home state?

Actually I believe her exact quote was, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” If I am not mistaken, conservatives everywhere were enraged - albums were burned, death threats ensued. It was treason.

But Margaret, let’s consider the following quotes attributed to Rush, another celebrity - albeit a celebrity who really gives renewed meaning to the saying a face made for radio:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

“The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.”

“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”

“Bipartisanship only happens after one side has been defeated. Ask the Japanese after World War II. Ask the Germans.”

The same jackass who made those statements also said, “I want Barack Obama to fail.” And more recently he expounded on that statement when he said, “The dirty little secret is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so.” For goodness sakes, I am surprised he finds time to be so loquasious between the mouthfuls of donuts.

Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat pig. I can say that without worry because I am a big, fat bitch. But what he looks like is really just so much fodder for people like me who don’t like his politics. What he says, however… well that is another story.

Hypocrisy. It’s a powerful word. Republicans should look it up sometime.

Barack Obama is a sitting President of a country still at war and on the brink of economic disaster. And Rush wants failure? He is hoping for failure and 14 million listeners who call themselves conservative Americans are okay with that. But a country singer wishing the President didn’t come from her home state caused moral outrage. Has anyone gone and looked up that word hypocrisy yet? While you’re at it, look up the word culpable. Scratch that, just look up the word gluttony.

Of course, Limbaugh can say whatever he wants. It’s a free country. And people can stop buying albums when they don’t like the singer anymore. That’s what ”it’s a free country” means. And I can say that Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than than a fat, greed-filled radio star praying on the insecurities and ignorance of people who graduated high school thinking that they knew everything. Like I said - it’s a free country. You’re free to love it or even hate it if you want. All I ask is that you be honest with yourself about which of those two positions you have chosen to subscribe. Because considering the current state of the world, we will all succeed or fail together - like it or not.

Margaret, I know that Howard listens to Rush. I hope he doesn’t read our little blog. And know that if only because he loves you, I love him. I just wish he would check out the local NPR station once in awhile. I mean it. Really.

magnificent Rush Limbaugh parody credit

Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.

I am sorely disappointed.

Sigh.

The appropriate -- but discouraging in its very appropriateness -- response?

Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.

The significant difference? McCain, at the time a United States Senator, was determined by the Ethics Committee of exercising "poor judgment" -- poor judgment that contributed to the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Barack Obama points out that Bill Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Is it noteworthy to point out that McCain's indiscretion occured when he was at the comparative ripe old age of 51 (depending on what date one chooses: I chose 1987 because it marks McCain's maverick-y response to being called a "wimp" -- that is, it marks his participation in the infamous April 1987 meetings with FHLBB members.)

Oh, did I forget to point out that once McCain discovered Keating was under criminal investigation, he ended his involvement? Selon Wikipedia:

On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[8] The senators requested that no staff be present.[13] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[8] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[8]

On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[5] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[12][8] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[8] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[8] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[14] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[8] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[8]

I am very attracted to people, politicians, especially, who are able to adjust their attitudes and actions when new information comes to light. Nothing proved more disheartening to me than W's constant noise about not changing horses in midstream, not abandoning a stance, even a clearly inappropriate and losing stance.

More than just a sign of intransigeance, his rigidity heralded his cruel stupidity.

Mais je divague... So I admire, to an extent, McCain's retrieval of his good sense from the edge of criminal intent and activity -- back then. What an honest guy. What a maverick. WhooHoo.

Likewise, I am very put off by people, politicians, especially, who figure, and appeal to, some sort of lowest common denominator.

In June, the Washington Wire blog at WSJ.com published this interesting take on current applications of Swift Boat style political attacks:

June 30, 2008, 6:55 pm
McCain Supporter Defends Swift Boat Attacks
Laura Meckler reports on the presidential race from Harrisburg, Pa.

A group of John McCain’s supporters came together today to defend McCain against charges that he was overstating the importance of his military service. Many remember how Democrat John Kerry was wounded by attacks in 2004 on his military record, and the McCain campaign does not want to let any charge go unanswered. More important, the spat gives the McCain campaign a reason to talk about his military service, a topic that serves him well.

The conference call with reporters took an odd turn when the supporters were asked if the anti-McCain comments, including one issued Sunday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, were analogous to charges issued by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Kerry in 2004. The group was condemned in many quarters, and today its very name — swift boat — is used as a synonym for a slimy political attack. Even McCain condemned the Swift Boat group in 2004.

But one McCain supporter, retired Col. Bud Day, who was held prisoner with McCain in Vietnam, said the attacks on McCain were nothing like the swift boat attacks. He helped produce those attacks against Kerry, which were true, he said. The attacks against McCain are not, he added.

Put all of this in the context of Sarah Palin's most recent idiocy -- and we are back to old-school backroom nonsense, made almost intolerable by this bright and shiny, now inane, now astute, new mouthpiece. She is paving the way for another detour from today's problems in order to reintroduce Jeremiah Wright, and -- undoubtedly -- Tony Rezko. God forbid she should address the economy in lieu of "associations" that have been explained and vetted ad nauseum.

Douglass K. Daniel goes beyond pointing out the blatant dishonesty of Palin's lowest-common-denominator approach and notes a frightening racial "subtext" in her golly-gosh-gee remarks:

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion, it serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.

John McCain occasionally says he looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.

When the 2008 campaign is over will McCain say he regrets appeals such as Palin's?

I am sorely, sorely disappointed. This was supposed to be the election of all elections, wherein dialogue was to be on point, on policy, and all about respecting the intelligence of the American electorate. Instead we are left with inflammatory analogies that kill the intellectual rigor most had been hungrily anticipating for the presidential elections of 2008.

Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.