Category Archives: Essays

April 15, 2014 · 9:54 PM

Boston Still Standing

The sun rose over Boston on April 16, 2013, as it has every day since.

The sun rose over Boston on April 16, 2013, as it has every day since.

Today marks the first anniversary of the Boston bombing; a trite terrorist attack that killed three bystanders and injured more than 200 others. I say trite because the two foreign-born brothers who targeted unsuspecting runners and observers at Boston’s annual marathon – held every year on Patriot’s Day – didn’t achieve their intended goal: to bring down a large metropolitan area. Like London in 2005, Madrid in 2004, New York City and Washington, D.C., in 2001 and Oklahoma City in 1995, it just couldn’t be done.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had just about everything they wanted, when their family brought them here in 2002 from Dagestan. They grew up in a middle class environment in one of America’s oldest and most revered cities. Tamerlan was training to be an Olympic boxer, and Dzhokhar was an ordinary college boy. Then, something happened with them. The older brother, in particular, suddenly realized he didn’t like the American military’s treatment of Muslims overseas. Thus, he decided to take action: bomb his adopted home city. Now, he’s dead, and his brother is in federal custody after barely surviving a battle with police last year.

I understand that people don’t like U.S. foreign policy. Our attempts at colonialism and, later, with democratic influence has always led to anger and resentment. Yes, I get that. I really do. But, people who become enraged with a nation’s outrageous behavior abroad always forget one thing: it’s not the fault of the common citizen. The Iraqi government, for example, committed genocide in Kurdistan – not the average Iraqi.

Terrorists also underestimate the goodness and resilience of humanity. Did the Tsarnaev brothers really think Boston would collapse after they attacked the marathon? There are only a handful of things that can take out such a large city; earthquakes and meteors being the most likely candidates. But, two punks who turn on their neighbors? Hell, no! Hitler almost inadvertently destroyed his beloved Germany during World War II. Mussolini practically did the same with Italy. Both ended up dying alongside their mistresses; Hitler in his underground bunker, and Mussolini hanged and burned.

People die and get hurt in terrorist acts. They scream, cry and vow revenge. But, as a society, we always manage to gather ourselves together and move forward. So, all the hate and anger goes for nothing. It wrecks some lives and burns a few cars. Then – people move on with their lives. What’s it worth then? Why the desire to destroy someone and something that may have absolutely nothing to do with the hostilities?

When Europeans first began populating the Western Hemisphere, they viewed the indigenous people as little more than two-legged forms of the local wildlife. The Europeans brought their guns, diseases and self-righteous determination and subsequently tried to decimate entire masses of individuals who had occupied this region for millennia. They did wipe out large communities and deliberately killed thousands of people, often at once. But, they didn’t win. They couldn’t destroy everyone. Indian people survived.

It’s a little like the Boston bombing case. All the fury and holy indignation just didn’t succeed. It never does. That’s not the way humanity works.

5 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , ,

April 9, 2014 · 10:06 PM

Burning

gty_fred_phelps_kb_140320_16x9_992

On March 19, Fred Phelps, the patriarch and founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas passed away at age 84. Goodbye and good riddance. I’m glad the old bastard is dead. It would be even better if the rest of his family could join him, but their time will come, too.

Westboro gained notoriety in the early 1990s as a rabidly anti-abortion and homophobic clan. They tested the limits of free speech with the simple act of protesting – a test that would take them to the U.S. Supreme Court. Westboro’s roots date back to 1931, when it originated as a branch of Topeka’s East Side Baptist Church. In 1955, however, Phelps broke ties with East Side and established Westboro.

As a biblical literalist, Fred Phelps held a very narrow view of the world and believed anyone who strayed from it was hell-bound. But, he wasn’t just some cantankerous loudmouth who adored media attention. He was a convicted criminal. In 1947, Phelps was a student at Bob Jones University, when he and some fellow pupils traveled to Vernal, Utah to try converting people from Mormonism. After Phelps gave a speech condemning the Mormon religion, a young man in the audience asked him a theological question. Phelps apparently didn’t know the answer and – as idiots are often wont to do – physically attacked the man. The scuffle almost incited a riot. In 1951, Phelps found himself in Pasadena, California, where he led a protest to make kissing in public a criminal felony. When a police officer told him he didn’t have permission to protest, the then-21-year-old assaulted him.

Phelps actually had a good start in life. He was a Boy Scout who earned the coveted Eagle Scout Award. He graduated from high school at age 16 and was admitted to the United State Military Academy in West Point New York. While there, however, he attended a Methodist revival meeting and decided to become a minister instead of attending West Point.

Phelps and his wife, Margie, met at the Arizona Bible Institute in 1951 and married the following year. They eventually had 13 children. Phelps went on to earn a law degree from Washburn University in 1962 and, ironically, developed a reputation as a civil rights lawyer. He even won an award from the NAACP for his work on civil rights cases. But, his career began to disintegrate in 1979, when he was disbarred in the state of Kansas for perjury. He spiraled further out of control with complaints of harassment, witness intimidation and more false testimonies, until 1987, when he was permanently forbidden from practicing law.

In 1991, WBC began its notorious and never-ending anti-gay crusade by protesting at Topeka’s Gage Park; claiming it was a hotbed of homosexual activity. Phelps and his gang seemed to cross a fragile line, however, when they began picketing at the funerals of AIDS victims around the same time. They bought into the right-wing evangelical mantra that AIDS was God’s condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. Even those who staunchly opposed homosexuality found funeral protests a bit much. WBC harassed gay-oriented businesses, women’s clinics and other institutions they despised by repeatedly faxing – and later emailing – them obscenity-laced messages. Every time someone complained, WBC cited the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees – among other things – the right to free speech.

For some free speech advocates, the WBC tactics raised troubling questions. Free speech is a critical element of a truly democratic society. The U.S. and other developed nations pride themselves on the right of their citizens to speak out; no matter how offensive the verbiage may be. The late comic Lenny Bruce pushed the bounds of free speech with racially-tinged topics and foul language during his live standup routines in the 1950s. He was arrested and fined on occasion.

In 1977, free speech took a darker turn, when a neo-Nazi group planned a march in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie wasn’t a random selection. After World War II, the Chicago suburb had become home to several survivors of Europe’s Nazi death camps. At the time, about 40,500 of the city’s estimated 70,000 residents were Jewish. To them, the sight of people proudly waving the Nazi swastika was a painful reminder of one of the 20th century’s worst periods. Led by Frank Collin, the neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Party of America, applied for a permit to march on May 1, 1977. Concerned about the antagonism such an event would generate, the Skokie Board of Commissioners passed an ordinance requiring marchers to post a $350,000 insurance bond. NSPA sued, stating that the ordinance violated the Constitution’s First Amendment. The case made it to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the Skokie bond resolution. NSPA pursued the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned it, noting that free speech covered even hate speech.

Free speech came under review again in 1984, when Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas. He was protesting the policies of President Ronald Reagan, which subsequently led to his arrest on charges that he violated a Texas statute preventing the desecration of venerable objects, such as the U.S. flag. Johnson sued, claiming the Texas law violated his free speech rights. The case landed at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989, which ruled in his favor. At the time, I worked for a bank in downtown Dallas and, on my way to lunch one afternoon, encountered a group of patriotic young men who were, oddly enough, protesting the Supreme Court’s decision. They were some kind of ROTC-type group; attired in suits and banging drums to the tune of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” They were also gathering signatures for a petition to the Supreme Court, hoping somehow to get the decision reversed. I signed it, but thought about it later. Can free speech be so limited?

Fred Phelps, his family and their supporters were always on a mission. They hated everyone and protested everywhere. They believed strongly that the United States had a one-way ticket to the “Dark Side” because of its tolerance of abortion, adultery, homosexuality, non-Christian theologies and other vices. In their view, each natural- or human-made catastrophe was a sign of God’s wrath upon America. From such horrors as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to seemingly random events, like the 2003 nightclub fire in Warwick, Rhode Island, Westboro claimed God was sending an omen.

Their hatred reached a putrid climax when they began picketing at the funerals of military personnel killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Along with carrying their regular “God Hates Fags” signs (that’s actually the name of their web site), they also bore placards with such terms as “Thank God for I.E.D.s (improved explosive devices)” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Singing “God Damn America,” while dragging the U.S. flag on the ground, Westboro touched nerves of raw pain for the families of the dead. In 2006, Westboro made their way to Maryland to picket at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder who had been killed in Iraq. Snyder’s father, Albert, stated he couldn’t tell what was emblazoned on the group’s placards, but learned about it from later news reports. Albert Snyder sued, claiming Westboro’s actions caused him great emotional distress. Phelps countered naturally that his church was merely exercising its free speech rights. But, a Maryland court agreed with Snyder and granted him a $10.9 million judgment against Phelps. Phelps appealed and got the decision reversed. Snyder pursued the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with Westboro.

I see one major problem with the Snyder case. The family sued for emotional distress, which is immeasurable. The case, as I saw it, centered on harassment, slander and stalking. WBC placed Matthew Snyder’s Marine Corps portrait on its web site juxtapositioned alongside various slurs like “fag” and “murderer.” They also traveled all the way to Maryland from Kansas for the sole purpose of picketing his funeral. But, the Snyder family focused on the emotional distress issue, instead of stalking and slander, which aren’t protected by free speech. Therefore, I can actually understand why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro.

“Let me put this in more common vernacular,” Shirley Phelps-Roper, one of Fred’s daughters, told a TV reporter during another picket. “He (Albert Snyder) got his feelings hurt.” She went on to explain that Westboro had no regard for the Snyder family’s “feelings.” I’m sure it’s mutual.

Six of Fred’s children, including Shirley, are lawyers. In fact, Shirley Phelps-Roper argued their case before the Supreme Court, which is highly unusual. Generally, litigants before the Court don’t present their own cases.

Four of Fred’s children, including his oldest son Nate, abandoned their family, which essentially prompted their excommunication from Westboro. I’m quite certain that didn’t hurt their feelings. When the Snyder case arose, Nate Phelps, an atheist, went public and denounced his family’s antics, calling the funeral protests “evil.” But, in a television interview, he also made a stunning accusation: his father had often beaten his mother, as well as him and his siblings. No one at Westboro validated his claims. But, that should surprise no one. Some of the most devoutly religious people are also among the most physically abusive. They use their religion to justify the violence.

I’ve always wondered if someone would put a bullet through the heads of Phelps or one his brood. People have slung rocks at them, and Phelps even got sprayed with mace during one protest at a gay rights march. WBC maintains a hefty travel account to support their activities; money that would be better spent, for example, funding education or feeding homeless people. But, just as you can’t tell people what to do with their money, you really can’t tell them how to practice free speech.

I sincerely hope Fred Phelps suffered a long and painful demise. I’m not religious – in the traditional sense – but I am spiritual and believe in an afterlife of some sort. I envision Phelps encountering the souls of all the people whose funerals he protested at or whose tragic deaths he celebrated on his voyage into the netherworld. I can see them waving with gentle smiles, as he descends into the darkness. The right to free speech is sacred to most freedom-loving people. But, it doesn’t guarantee a place on the lap of whatever god you worship.

Westboro gets run out of Moore, Oklahoma.

6 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , ,

March 17, 2014 · 10:11 PM

Drugged Banking

drugs-and-money

In 2012, HSBC Bank USA N.A. agreed to a $1.256 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department for its failure to monitor the activities of drug cartels using the bank to launder their money.  HSBC USA, which is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, and part of the international financial conglomerate known as HSBC Holdings, didn’t admit any wrongdoing (no surprise there), but agreed to the massive settlement to avoid prosecution.  According to documents released by the DOJ, HSBC essentially violated the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) by not adhering to anti-money laundering measures and by not conducting appropriate due diligence of its foreign account holders as required by U.S. banking laws.  In other words, they simply looked the other way while gladly accepting customer deposits and didn’t ask any questions.

HSBC (formerly the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company) traces its roots to the ambitions of a Thomas Sutherland, a Scotsman with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.  Realizing the need for solid banking facilities in the Orient, Sutherland founded the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company in Hong Kong in March of 1865.  He opened its Shanghai affiliate a month later.  Within a few years, the entity grew to become the largest financial institution in Asia.  In 1992, the corporation acquired London-based Midland Bank and evolved into the present-day HSBC Holdings PLC.

Law enforcement officials in the U.S. and other nations like to talk tough when discussing the multi-national drug war.  In June of 1971, President Richard Nixon formally declared a “war on drugs,” a direct response to the increased usage of marijuana, LSD and other narcotics.  He advocated mandatory sentencing for even minor drug possession offenses and no-knock warrants.  However, in 1972, an independent commission recommended decriminalization of marijuana and allowing it for personal use.  Nixon, of course, balked at the idea.  But, between 1973 and 1977 eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession.  In October of 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize marijuana possession for anyone caught with no more than an ounce of the drug.  President Jimmy Carter tried to focus attention on treatment instead of imprisonment.  But, by the 1980s, the tide had begun to shift against such reasonable approaches.  Many parents were growing concerned about the rising rates of marijuana usage among teenagers.  Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981 promising to intensify the war on drugs.  The number of people jailed for drug offenses skyrocketed from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997.  Even First Lady Nancy Reagan jumped into the fray with her quaint but laughable “Just Say No” campaign.

Today, the United States spends an average of $51,000,000,000 annually to combat illegal narcotics possession, transport and sales.  In 2012 alone, 1.55 million people were arrested in the U.S. for nonviolent drug charges.  We have more than 2.2 million incarcerated (more than any other nation), mostly on drug charges.  The U.S. – Mexican border has become highly militarized.  Both people and dogs are trained to detect illegal narcotics stored away in suitcases and vehicle glove compartments.  Traffic flows on border crossings between the U.S. and México has slowed dramatically in the past decade, due primarily to drug searches.

But, we’ve seen no improvement.  Drug usage in the U.S. remains high.  So does the violence.  The crack cocaine epidemic that exploded in the 1980s has metamorphosed into a seemingly persistent state of bloodletting.  By the turn of the century, the narcotics trade had migrated from such far-flung places as Bolivia and Columbia to México.  In 2006, Mexican president Felipe Calderón launched his own war on drugs.  And, that’s when things worsened.  The level of violence resulting from this half-hearted venture has culminated in the deaths of at least 100,000 people and the disappearance of more than 20,000 along the U.S. – Mexican border.  México already has a reputation for police corruption, but the average Mexican citizen is vulnerable to the fierceness of drug cartels.  Border towns have become especially dangerous.  Even people who aren’t involved in drug activities can fall victim to the violence.  Ciudad Juarez, just across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, is one of the most dangerous cities on Earth.

But, this all goes back to the banks.  Mexican drug cartels are not only incredibly brutal; they’re also unbelievably wealthy.  Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, former head of the Sinaloa cartel who was captured recently in México, had the unique distinction of being on the United States’ “Most Wanted” list as well as one of the richest people in the world, according to Forbes.  In fact, Forbes estimated that the Sinaloa cartel’s annual revenue exceeds $3 billion.

People often ask where all that money originates.  But, I always wonder where it’s stored.  This isn’t digital currency, as in “bitcoin.”  They’re hard dollars.  U.S. paper currency is rectangular-shaped and measures 2.61” wide by 6.14” long with a thickness of 0.0043”.  A stack of 100 pieces of U.S. paper currency, therefore, would stand 43” (3’ x 7”) high.  If you multiply that into the billions, then it becomes obvious that the money not only weighs a lot, but it takes up a great deal of room.  Where would one keep, say, a million dollars in hard currency?

Enter the duplicity of the banks.  Drug cartels wouldn’t be able to operate and function without seeming impunity if financial institutions actually enforced laws regarding cash deposits, which are lengthy and detailed.  Banks must notify the government if they receive $10,000 or more in a single cash deposit.  They must also report to the government any cash withdrawals of that amount.  They have to file a Form 8300 within 15 days after such a transaction.  But, the laws grow vague regarding “suspicious activity.”  If a customer suddenly starts making cash withdrawals in the thousands, for example, the bank is legally obliged to report it.  That, however, leaves it up to the institution.

When I worked for a major bank in Dallas, each associate was required to partake in a money laundering seminar every year.  We viewed videos and slide presentations of how money is surreptitiously moved through a bank to avoid detection of criminal activity.  The “know your customer” rule was hammered into us.  In retrospect, I realize my colleagues and I were on the low rung of the financial totem pole.  Technically, we were the first line of defense.  But, do the same rules apply to the executives who actually run the company?

In 2010, Wachovia Corporation, another large U.S. banking conglomerate, agreed to pay $160 million in forfeitures and fines after officials accused it of “willfully overlooking” the suspicious nature of $420 billion in transactions between the bank and Mexican currency-exchange houses.  The movement of that much money should have alerted Wachovia associate to a nefarious undercurrent.  But, it didn’t.  Or, maybe it did, and no one bothered to investigate further.  I suspect Wachovia and other banks often know exactly what’s going on with the transfer of so much money, but deliberately ignore it.  Are drug cartels that intimidating?  Or, is the lure of vast cash reserves just too great of an opportunity to pass up?  Perhaps, it’s both.

The fiascos involving both HSBC and Wachovia remind me of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), an international banking organization established in Luxembourg in 1972 by a Pakistani financier, Agha Hasan Abedi, with offices in London and Karachi.  Within a decade, BCCI boasted more than 400 branches in 78 countries and assets over $20 billion in assets.  But, its goals were purely criminal.  BCCI deliberately avoided regulatory oversight in the countries in which operated for the express purpose of enriching its executives and shareholders.  But, it all came to an extraordinary end in 1991 as bank regulators in seven nations became fully aware of BCCI’s activities and began shutting down its operations.  It was one of the boldest and most flagrant acts of financial malfeasance the world had ever seen.  Critics joked that BCCI stood for “Bank of Crooks and Criminals International.”

Every day in America someone gets arrested for minor drug possession.  These individuals aren’t the brains behind the giant drug cartels wreaking havoc on the citizenry.  They’re usually people just trying to make some quick cash, or hoping to get relief from the traumas of their everyday lives.  Yet, they’re the ones who get caught up in the criminal justice system and are sent off to prison.  The people inciting drug-fueled violence aren’t necessarily the ones stalking dusty streets and dimly-lit back alleys.  They’re the folks in business suits, lunging in corner offices.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , ,

March 15, 2014 · 9:52 PM

Shut Up and Draw

George W. Bush delivers remarks at the opening of his library in Dallas on April 25, 2013.

George W. Bush delivers remarks at the opening of his library in Dallas on April 25, 2013.

“I no longer feel that great sense of responsibility that I had when I was in the Oval Office.  And frankly, it’s a liberating feeling.” – President George W.Bush, to a high school graduating class in Roswell, New México, May 2009.

Countless numbers of Americans, especially several military families, wish we could liberate ourselves from the dismal legacy of the Bush Administration.  Unfortunately, we’re stuck with it.  But, survivors of military personnel killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars bear relentless pain and anguish.  Anyone who enters the military has to accept the fact that they could be called to war and therefore, prepares as best they can for it.  Their parents, spouses, children and other relatives try to prepare themselves, too.  But, it’s still not easy losing a loved one to a foreign conflict.

Recently, Bush launched an initiative to help our military veterans transition back into civilian life as smoothly as possible.  My own conversations with past veterans made me realize how difficult this can be.  Through his Bush Institute, the 43rd president is imploring companies to recruit and retain military veterans, believing their tendency towards self-discipline and teamwork makes them among the best employees.

“We’ve got a problem, too many vets are unemployed,” said Bush.  “There’s what we call a military-civilian divide.”

He just figured this out?  It’s a noble cause, though.  The unemployment rate for military veterans remains around 10% as of 2013, compared to 7% for the general population.  A few times in recent years military veterans working for staffing agencies have contacted me about various technical writing positions.  The moment I hear them say they were in the military, I stop the conversation and tell them how much I appreciate their service.  It usually catches them off-guard.  But, in turn, they appreciate just hearing someone tell them that.

However, Bush has gone further and also issued a challenge to the medical community to drop the word “disorder” from the term “post-traumatic stress disorder.”  PTSD is a relatively recent term in the lexicon of psychological afflictions.  It used to be called “shell shock” or “battle fatigue.”  Many thought it was just a phase; almost an imaginary disorder.  But, it’s real and it’s painful for its sufferers and the people closest to them.

Bush, nonetheless, believes the “disorder” word stigmatizes the affected individual and makes them sound defective, or unable to be rehabilitated; therefore, he states, they may have trouble finding work in an already-fragile job market from employers who are weary of difficult people.

Gosh, how thoughtful.  It’s also hypocritical.  Like his Vice-President, Dick Cheney, Bush used just about every excuse to avoid military service when his country called upon him more than four decades ago.  An average high school student and occasional troublemaker, Bush managed to enter Yale University in 1964 and graduate four years later with a business degree.  Upon his graduation, his draft deferment ended.  The nation was mired in the depths of the Vietnam War, with public sentiment against the conflict (and the men who served there) becoming more vehement.  Still, Bush managed to secure a relatively cushy spot in the Texas Air National Guard.  Large numbers of young men were trying to do the same, and – according to some records – all of the spots in the Guard were taken.  I guess it didn’t hurt that his father was a U.S. congressman at the time.  Bush reenlisted in 1972 and was honorably discharged from the Guard two years later.  Questions remain about his level of attendance and whether or not he even completed his service.  His military records mysteriously vanished, and the Pentagon later claimed they were inadvertently destroyed.

I’ve always found that to be a rather convenient explanation.  A friend who served in the U.S. Air Force for twenty years, including several tours of duty in Vietnam, still has his military records.  All military personnel, he told me and several others more than a decade ago, are legally allowed to keep copies of them.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, never did even that much.  He garnered five military draft deferments around the same time: four educational and one because he was a new father.  “I had other priorities in the 60s than military service,” Cheney said in 1989.

Words and actions always come back to haunt people.  I understand that no one wants to go into battle.  War is ugly and dirty; it is one of the most vile of human interactions.  But, hearing Bush trying to make nice with the people he sent to war is revolting.

The Iraq War is the crux of my anger.  It’s a conflict based solely on lies and innuendoes.  Abusing the international support brought on by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration created a tenuous link between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  I believe the sole purpose was to gain access to the vast reserves of oil beneath Iraqi soil.  Proof comes in the fact that Halliburton (the energy conglomerate that Cheney headed before resigning in 2000) received a slew of no-bid government contracts.  For example, almost as soon as the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003, the Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.  Boots had just hit the sand and blood was still dripping while gilded corporate executives were salivating over big payouts.  While not necessarily illegal, no-bid contracts are certainly unethical and, in this case, highly suspicious.

War is fought by the grunts on the ground, but it’s waged by well-dressed power brokers in far-away skyscraper office suites whose idea of pain and agony is a paper cut.  It’s pretty much been that way for the past century.

As part of his retirement from public life, Bush has taken to painting.  He took up the hobby almost as soon as he departed the White House.  While his works may not earn him a spot in “International Artist” magazine, they’re being prominently displayed – (where else?) – in his presidential library.

In the spring of 2005, my-then supervisor at an engineering company, a coworker and I lived and worked in northeastern Oklahoma on a special project for the government agency where our firm had a contract.  We’d fly into Tulsa, rent a car and drive to the hotel in the far northeastern quadrant of the “Sooner State.”  One morning, as we prepared to board a flight in Dallas, I noticed a large group of people in military fatigues gathered nearby.  After a few moments of observing them, I approached the group and personally thanked each of them for their service.  They all seemed genuinely surprised that I – a total stranger – would do something like that.  But, it meant a lot to me that they were making such personal sacrifices.  In retrospect, I wonder how many returned alive, or at least undamaged.  I guess I’ll never know.

I’ll keep thinking about them, though, and I hope Bush just keeps painting.  He and the other clowns in his administration have done enough damage.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 12, 2014 · 11:03 PM

Mud Sliding

LittleMudVolcano

The mid-term elections are upon us here in the U.S.  That means – as has been the practice for the past quarter century – that candidates shout at the voters in declaring why the other person is so much worse than they are.  This trend gained momentum during the 2000 presidential campaign in which then-Texas Governor George W. Bush narrowly triumphed over Vice-President Al Gore.  It was the closest presidential elections in U.S. history, and Bush couldn’t have won if his campaign staff hadn’t demonized Gore and ultimately convince the Supreme Court to circumvent the electoral process and proclaim Bush the winner.  Under the direction of Karl Rove, Bush’s campaign apparently had to besmirch Gore’s reputation, since Bush had no other redeeming qualities.  He was a failed businessman, a one-time failed congressional candidate and a former part-time owner of the Texas Rangers.  His years as Texas governor were pretty much uneventful and marked by only three notable highlights: an increase of the speed limit on Texas highways; a law legalizing the right to carry firearms; and the execution of a woman for the first time in over 130 years.  That was it; that was the extent of his professional resume.  If he’d tried to run on that legacy alone – and if voters had actually paid attention to it – Bush probably would have lost to Gore.

The Rove sludge machine didn’t stop with the 2000 presidential elections though.  They went on to denounce the reputations of other political candidates, such as Max Cleland, a military veteran who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.  Cleland, a Democrat, had served as a U.S. senator from Georgia from 1997 – 2003.  But, during the 2002 mid-term elections, his patriotism was questioned – and he subsequently lost amidst a wave of hysteria following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  That a combat war veteran who nearly lost his life should have his patriotism and thereby, his credibility questioned against a president and vice-president who used just about every excuse imaginable to avoid military service during the same period is obscene and hypocritical.  But, that’s how the Rove gang operated; they couldn’t run a decent campaign to highlight their candidate’s accomplishments.

The same questions of patriotism befell U.S. Senator John Kerry when he ran for the presidency in 2004.  Also a military veteran who had served in Vietnam, Kerry came under attack from a group called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”  The group of former Vietnam War veterans was convened strictly to help Bush defeat Kerry.  Financed by wealthy political donors, SBVT questioned Kerry’s credentials as a combat sailor during the Vietnam conflict and thereby insinuated that he wasn’t worthy of the Navy medals he’d received.  Among their benefactors was Texas billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens who added dirt to the mud pool by offering $1 million to anyone who could disavow the SBVT allegations.  When another group of Vietnam veterans finally proved that Kerry’s military credentials were impeccable, Pickens reneged on his challenge, saying the information wasn’t verifiable; thus proving no one is too old to be a punk.

Kerry, of course, made things bad for himself with his varied verbal fumbles – not nearly as bad as Bush, though.  At least Kerry knows how to pronounce the word “nuclear.”  Kerry initially didn’t authorize release of his military records to the public, even though it may have helped his campaign.  He finally released them in 2005.

There was a time that even I remember when a military veteran’s credibility was not something you questioned.  I also recall that politicians used to debate the issues and not each other’s reputations.  Things rarely got personal in high-profile political elections.  When they did, whoever made the unsavory accusation or dredged up some dirt from the past was pretty much shamed into obscurity.  Now, that seems to be the standard for running a campaign.

I still think the average American’s distaste for all things political began with the Watergate fiasco.  But, it reached its putrid zenith in the mid-1990s, when Republicans took over both houses of the U.S. Congress.  Already filled with vile against Bill Clinton, they did everything they could remove him from office; a scheme that culminated in Clinton’s 1998 impeachment over a tawdry sex affair.

As the political season got underway here in Texas late last year, the state Republican Party quickly found itself in a curious state of division.  In 2002, Republicans gained control over the Texas legislature for the first time since Reconstruction.  If you listened to the state GOP, they sounded like a group of impoverished Jews who’d finally defeated the Nazis in post-World War II Europe after a century of oppression and brutality.  But, the traditional Republican Party is now under attack from the “Tea Party,” a pack of extremists who formed in 2009 – conveniently – when Barack Obama took office.  The “Tea Party” clan has denounced all elected Republican officials as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  In other words, the standard GOP isn’t right-wing enough.  It’s like Stalin calling Hitler a pot-smoking, tree hugger.  To me, the only different is that “Tea Party” Republicans haven’t gotten their required rabies shots yet and keep forgetting to wipe their asses.

It was interesting to watch Texas Republicans try so hard to out-conservative one another.  Each one (a White male) running for a statewide office lambasted his opponent as a (gasp!) Washington liberal who doesn’t support traditional (Christian) values.  Ironically, they all had two things in common: they hate Obama and love the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Televised campaign ads showed many of them on hunting trips, waving guns like they were their penises.  As a writer and left-of-center blogger, I have a fetish for the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech and the right to vote.  But hey, I’m just kind of queer like that.

Last year I lamented how voter turnouts were lower in 2012 than in 2004 and 2008.  More importantly, on average, only about a third of eligible Texas voters make a concerted effort to get to the polls.  That explains why Texas appears to be a bastion of right-wing lunacy.  The lone Democrat running for Texas governor, Wendy Davis, has already been labeled a one-issue candidate (because of her filibuster last year of a restrictive abortion bill), but questions arose recently about the veracity of her life story.  Some were upset that she had said she was 21, not 19, when she and her husband divorced.  In fact, Davis and her husband separated when she was 19; their divorce became final two years later.  Do little things really mean a lot?  That she lifted herself out of poverty by forging ahead with a college education apparently says nothing about her personal fortitude.

Ben Sargent 012414

Image courtesy Ben Sargent.

But, instead of talking bad about their opponent, why don’t candidates promote what’s good about themselves?  Tell us voters what good things you’ve done for your community.  Although Texas has recovered more quickly from the recent economic downturn, what ideas does each candidate have to maintain that level of productivity?  The Republican candidates despise the Affordable Care Act, but what solutions do they have for ensuring that all Texans have access to health care beyond a hospital emergency room or Band-Aids from Wal-Mart?

Is it really too much to ask that these people show some level of professionalism and focus on the issues?  I guess so.

“Ugliness creates bitterness,” former First Lady Claudia “Lady Bird” Johnson, a Texas native, once said.  “Ugliness is an eroding force on the people of our land. We are all here to try to change that.”

I truly wish that would happen.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 9, 2014 · 12:58 AM

Downton Abyss

Crotchety Violet Crawley doing what she does best – smirking.

Crotchety Violet Crawley doing what she does best – smirking.

Since 2010, “Downton Abbey” has been one of the most popular dramas on television.  It’s enjoyed high ratings here in the U.S., which surprised its British producers.  I’ll concede that the production values are extraordinary: the period costumes and set design are as appealing as the beautiful cinematography.  I also love seeing those vintage automobiles.  My parents are modest fans of the show, but I’m not.  In fact, I actually loathe it.  The concept of upper-class Britons spending their time delivering snarky comments to one another, while haggling over what attire to don for the latest high-society ball, bears no sense of originality or purpose in my view.  But, “Downton Abbey” actually serves a greater, if unintentional purpose: it represents what is wrong in the U.S. from a cultural and economic standpoint.

In one episode, I happened to overhear the character of Violet Crawley, portrayed by the exquisite Dame Maggie Smith, lament that life in England was pathetically different than it was before the “Great War,” a.k.a. World War I.  She desperately wants to see it return to “the way it was before.”  That’s how some White conservative Americans view this nation; they want to see it return to the way it was before the 1960s, when droves of Negroes, Hispanics, Indians, women and queers dared to demand equal treatment.  It’s one thing that makes Ronald Reagan so popular among White conservatives.  The “Gipper” (a failed, divorced actor) had always believed America was just fine before c. 1963.  Reagan’s British counterpart and political soul mate, Margaret Thatcher, apparently felt the same.  Aside from their subtle distaste for equality, both enacted legislation to crush unions and subsequently impede workers’ rights.  Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981 for going on strike to demand higher wages and better working conditions.  Thatcher systematically destroyed coal miners’ unions; coming close to bringing in the military to help put an end to their relentless strikes.  Consequently, labor never viewed either Reagan or Thatcher with much adoration.

It’s these latter antics that brought both countries back to an earlier time when large companies could do what they wished to their workers with little regard for their health or safety.  And, it’s where “Downton Abbey” plays out – during a period in which the wealthiest citizens managed to insulate themselves from “The Rest of Us” and stay above the fray of everyday life.  “Downton Abbey,” with all its vivacious costumes and sumptuous furnishings, is emblematic of the very real and extraordinary economic disparity in the U.S.  We’re still suffering the ill effects of dramatic deregulation of the banking and housing industries that the Bush Administration enacted more than a decade ago; irresponsible actions that, along with two unfunded wars and disparate tax policies, almost completely destroyed the U.S. economy by the end of 2008.  It lingers as a financial hangover for us common folks.

Still, Peter Augustine Lawler, a conservative professor of government at Berry College, celebrated the “astute nostalgia” of “Downton Abbey” in an editorial in “Intercollegiate Review,” a publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  ISI promotes limited government and free market economies – hallmarks of conservative ideology that leave no room for individual freedom, despite their claims to the contrary.

Wrote Lawler: “Everyone – aristocrat or servant – knows his place, his relational responsibilities. . . . The characters aren’t that burdened by the modern individualistic freedom of figuring out one’s place in the world. . . . Many of the customs that seem pointlessly expensive and time consuming, such as dressing for every dinner, are employment programs for worthy servants given secure, dignified places in a world where most ordinary people struggle. . . . The nobility of living in service to a lord. . . . What aristocracy offers us at its best is a proud but measured acceptance of the unchangeable relationship between privileges and responsibilities in the service of those whom we know and love.”

Notice how Lawler mentions the term “place.”  It’s a common designation the upper classes often bestow upon their lowly minions.  It’s a word many Whites in the U.S. have used in conjunction with non-Whites; what some men have often said to women.  Everyone supposedly has a “place” in the human food chain and they shouldn’t dare to undermine that structure; lest they be denounced as heretical and banished to social obscurity.  Regardless of race or ethnicity, though, Lawler coldly declares that the aristocracy of any nation should be able to preserve their right to a privileged state without impediments and damned the rest of us.  In other words, we’re supposed to accept such conditions without question; it’s just the way things are and too bad if we don’t like it.

There is no “nobility” in a life of servitude – whether to the lord of an antiquitous estate or a bully boss in a Fortune 500 company.  It’s one reason why I’m strongly opposed to illegal immigration.  Aside from the legality question, illegal immigrants are easy prey for unscrupulous employers who force them to work in the worst of conditions and sometimes fail to pay them; they then threaten the individuals with deportation if they have the audacity to demand the promised compensation.

It’s somewhat similar to what’s occurring now in the American workplace, as the economy remains fragile.  Corporate executives threaten employees with layoffs or termination if the latter won’t accept harsh working conditions, low pay and / or cuts in benefits.  I was threatened with my job at an engineering company in 2010; at the height of the “Great Recession.”  It worked, as I kept quiet and searched earnestly for another job.  So were most of my colleagues.  Everyone seemed unhappy, but could do nothing about it.  Our supervisor once mentioned in a meeting, “I wish you could see the number of applications on my desk.”  As her boss sat there nodding, we all comprehended the subtle threat.  Despite working so hard, though, four of us were laid off that fall.  My only consolation is that the supervisor and manager ended up losing their jobs, too.

The skewered viewpoint of the “Downton Abbey” gang is courtesy of principal writer Julian Fellowes, a private school graduate who holds a seat in England’s House of Lords.  Most writers compose what they know.  I’ve lived all my life to date in Texas; raised in a middle class household with two working parents in a good suburban home.  So, that’s who my characters are.  They may encounter some unusual events (since I have a fetish for the supernatural), but they’re generally working folks.  That’s my view of reality – and it’s a more accurate assessment than the world according to Fellowes.  He grew up in a golden bubble where his family obviously had privileges.  He never questioned the veracity of that lifestyle – why should anyone else?

Well I do – and I have no problems questioning it.  Violet Crawley (the name sounds as wretched as the character looks) reminds me of former First Lady Barbara Bush and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.  After Hurricane Katrina devastated the American Gulf Coast in August of 2005, Bush and her husband, former President George H.W. Bush, visited the Houston Astrodome where many New Orleans residents had been evacuated.  Observing the masses of people who had lost everything to floodwaters and high winds, Mrs. Bush quipped, “Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.  And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”

Schlafly came to prominence in the 1970s when she vehemently opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have guaranteed complete and total equality to everyone in the U.S., regardless of gender.  Schlafly warned that women’s traditional roles were under threat from the proposed amendment: protective orders for sexual assault and alimony would be eliminated; women would no longer automatically be granted custody of their children in divorce cases; women would be drafted into the military; and unisex public restrooms would become mandatory.  With a law degree in her background, Schlafly often opened her speeches with gems like, “I’d like to thank my husband for letting me be here tonight.”

In the narrow prism through which Bush and Schlafly see the world, everyone has their proper place, and challenging it would simply disrupt the natural order of things.  Because of the near-total economic collapse, the U.S. now has the greatest wealth disparity since the 1920s.  It’s a trend that actually began years ago, but became more pronounced by the end of the previous decade.  A 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that, between 1979 and 2007, after-tax income for the nation’s wealthiest 1% grew by 275%.  For the rest of the populace, it increased during the same period by an average of only 40%.  Although the “Great Recession” technically ended in 2010, unemployment remains stubbornly above 6%.  It’s been a “jobless recovery,” a term no one I know had ever heard until now.  It’s an oxymoron – how can an economy recover from a recession if so many people can’t find work?

homepage_graphic_large

In January 1952, two young men, Ernesto Guevara and Alberto Granado, launched a road trip across South America on a motorcycle.  Their purpose was purely hedonistic; their youthful vigor infused with a craving for adventure and fun.  But, as they traveled from one town to another, Guevara in particular noted the gross economic disparities between the elite European-style upper classes and the downtrodden indigenous populations.  He became disillusioned with a world he thought was just and righteous.  He turned his anger to the written word in a chronicle he dubbed “The Motorcycle Diaries: Notes on a Latin American Journey.”

“And then many things became very clear… we learned perfectly that the life of a single human being is worth millions of times more than all the property of the richest man on Earth,” wrote Guevara.  Later, the would-be medical student metamorphosed into the revolutionary Che Guevara – and would be murdered because he dared to challenge the elitist authority.

But, that happens when a country’s finances become skewered to favor the most affluent and their puppets in government.  People like Violet Crawley may feel safe and comfortable in their diamond-studded estates for a time.  But, we all die at some point – and whatever money and jewels we possess won’t go with us into that abyss of the next world.

Graph courtesy Congressional Budget Office.

4 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , ,

February 14, 2014 · 9:57 PM

Fags in the Shower! Fags in the Shower!

Michael Sam hopes to turn his collegiate football career into a professional one.

Michael Sam hopes to turn his collegiate football career into a professional one.

The American sports world is all riled up again – and as usual, over nothing important.  Michael Sam, a 24-year-old senior defensive lineman football player at the University of Missouri, recently announced that he’s a practicing homosexual.  Sam has garnered a number of accolades for his athletic ability, including All-American Player and Southeastern Conference Defensive Player of the Year awards.  But, his unapologetic admission to being gay has steered the conversation to a prospect more horrifying to many heterosexual men than erectile dysfunction and forgetting to order flowers on Valentine’s Day: there’ll be a damn queer in the locker room!

Professional sports in the U.S. is rife with unsavory characters and devious antics.  Like their counterparts in the entertainment world, career athletes seem to have a penchant for nefarious behavior in the public arena.  Former baseball player Darryl Strawberry had a long history of drug use, which – coupled with documented assaults on his first wife – eventually derailed his career.  Key word: eventually.  Despite his troubles, team owners and coaches kept giving him second chances.  His high batting averages appeared to gloss over the awful reality of his self-destruction.

The late Wilt Chamberlain, a legendary figure in basketball, once claimed to have slept with over 20,000 women.  His lawyer, Seymour Goldberg, declared that Chamberlain “collected women” the way some people collect stamps.  His nickname, “The Big Dipper,” came about because he often had to duck his 7’1” frame downward when he entered doorways.  But, the moniker obviously sported a more salacious definition when rumors of his romantic escapades began circulating in the media.

One of the most brutal stories of a professional athlete’s incorrigible behavior involves Rae Carruth, formerly of the Carolina Panthers.  In November of 1999, Carruth ordered a friend to murder his then-girlfriend, Cherica Adams, who was eight months pregnant.  Two years earlier Carruth had lost a paternity suit and, apparently reluctant to support yet another unwanted child, he tried convincing Adams to have an abortion.  When she refused, he allegedly planned to have her beaten up so she’d miscarry.  After that failed, he went further and set up the hit.  The two met for a date at a movie theatre.  They left in separate cars, with Adams following Carruth.  Another vehicle drove up beside Adams, and a man later identified as a friend of Carruth fired four shots.  Adams crashed and, despite her injuries, managed to dial 911 from her cell phone.  Doctors were able to save the 8-month-old male fetus.  Adams later scribbled notes for police officials describing the sequence of events and clearly implicated Carruth in the crime.  Carruth had told investigators he’d turn himself into police if Adams died.  When she finally succumbed to her injuries a month later, Carruth fled.  Fortunately, he was caught and convicted of murder in 2000, along with his three accomplices.  But, from the start, sports writers and Carruth fan were willing to give Carruth the benefit of the doubt.

In December 2012, Josh Brent, a Dallas Cowboys player, was involved in a drunk driving wreck that killed his fellow teammate and best friend, Jerry Brown.  The two had patronized a strip club and consumed large amounts of alcohol, when Brent lost control of his Mercedes.  Police officers arriving at the scene found Brent trying to pull Brown from the fiery crash.  A blood-alcohol test on Brent measured 0.18, more than twice the legal limit in Texas.  Brent’s defense attorneys tried to claim that his 320-pound frame could handle that much booze, which was roughly equal to 17 mixed drinks.  Amidst such trauma, however, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones refused to terminate Brent’s contract until after the trial.  But, the ultimate shame in this tragedy came when Judge Robert Burns announced Brent’s sentence – 180 days in jail and 10 years’ probation.

There are countless other stories of professional athletes abusing their wives or girlfriends; committing sexual assault; driving drunk; beating up friends and neighbors; and / or using illegal narcotics.  But, if you listen to the rhetoric over Michael Sam, you’d think his sexuality was as criminal as those of the aforementioned athletes.  In professional sports, it’s apparently okay for a man to beat the crap out of his wife.  In fact, many people just seem to want to shove that under the rug of illicit behavior.

But, said athlete admits that he’s gay?  Well, suddenly he’s crossed the line.  We can’t have that.  We can’t have any fags in the shower.  The same argument has been used before in the U.S. military.  It was a basis for the compromise over the pathetic “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy enacted in 1994.  Until it was repealed in 2011, more people were booted out of the military for being gay or lesbian than for being fat.

In the narrow minds of bigotry, some transgressions are inexcusable.  Homosexuality is among them.  Unless Michael Sam has forced someone into a sexually compromising position (and that’s almost always an accusation, especially towards gay men), people should focus more on his athletic abilities and his difficult upbringing than his sexual predilections.  He lost one brother to gun violence; another brother has been missing since 1998; and two more of his brothers are imprisoned.  At one point, he and his mother lived in her car.  Sam is the first member of his family to attend college.  It’s unlikely he decided to pursue a football career so he can scope out guys in the locker room.  Anyone who visits a locker room (or public restroom, for that matter) to pick up dates needs to get their ass kicked anyway.

Here’s another thing: men look at one another’s genitalia in the locker room.  Every man does; if he denies it, he’s either lying, or he’s dead.  It’s not a stare, or a gape; it’s just a casual glance to see if they measure up.  Every man is concerned about his penis size at some point in his life.  And, every woman is just as concerned about her butt and hip size during some internal squabble with her internal self.  We humans all just want to be – and look – normal.  Being gay or lesbian doesn’t cross the invisible line – but, staring does.  And, that’s just not going to happen very often.

Personally, I’m not a football fan, so I’d never heard of Michael Sam until this faux issue arose.  And, I certainly don’t plan to follow his career should be become the first openly-gay professional player in American football history.  I have more important concerns.  So should everyone else.

Local Dallas / Fort Worth sports anchor Dale Hansen tells it like it is.

5 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 12, 2014 · 11:30 PM

Dr. Damary M. Bonilla-Rodriguez – Dismantling the Myth of the Hispanic Woman

Damarys-picture

The United States likes to consider itself the beacon of equality, fairness and ingenuity.  To some extent, it’s accomplished those goals.  But, if you look beneath the surface, you’ll find a number of people who have had to fight harder than most for it.  Damary M. Bonilla-Rodriguez is one of them.  I encountered Dr. Bonilla-Rodriguez through the Hispanic Professionals Networking Group (HPNG) on Linked In.  HPNG is dedicated to increasing the visibility of Hispanic business professionals.

Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the U.S.; something that’s due, in part, to immigration.  But, many Americans ignore the fact that, as a group, Hispanics have been here longer than any other; except for Native Americans, with whom we often have a shared heritage.

Regardless, stereotypes of Hispanics persist – in both popular culture and political debates.  While all women have endured some level of oppression and discrimination, Hispanic, Black, Asian and Native American women, in particular, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being double minorities.  This is of personal interest to me, since I’ve seen the troubles my mother and other women in my family have faced.

Even now, if you watch American TV, you’ll find limited portrayals of Hispanic women.  Colombian-born Sofia Vergara, a star on ABC’s “Modern Family,” is one of the most prominent.  But, the former model still panders to the conventional image of a Latina – complete with mangled English that (I guess) is supposed to be humorously cute.  Then, there’s Shakira, another Colombian, who gyrated her way onto the American music scene with faux blonde locks.  The only plausible Hispanic female character in American entertainment I can recall is Eva Longoria from ABC’s “Desperate Housewives.”  She spoke perfect English and wasn’t obsessed with food and sex.  Towards the end of the show’s run, another Hispanic actress, Lupe Ontiveros, appeared as Longoria’s mother-in-law.  Ontiveros, who died in 2012, once estimated that she played a maid or housekeeper-type role some 200 times in her career.

It’s against these personifications that Dr. Bonilla-Rodriguez finds herself.  I asked her recently to expand upon her career as head of the Latina Initiative Project at Girls Incorporated, a non-profit organization that seeks to empower young Hispanic women into realizing they can be more than wives and mothers or singers and actresses.

Please tell us about your background.

I was born and raised in El Barrio/Spanish Harlem NYC.  My mom died when I was 8 years old; a victim to homicide.  I am the eldest three sisters.  I was raised by my maternal grandparents because my father was in prison during my childhood and not involved in my life.  I focused on education and community activism as a means to achieve success.  I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish and Social Work, Master of Science degree in Organizational Communication, Special Certification in Corporate Communication, and a Doctorate of Education with a focus in Executive leadership.

What prompted you to get involved with women and leadership?

I grew up in a family where the women worked hard to care for their families and provide but were not happy because they had jobs, not careers.  I did not have anyone in my extended circle that had graduated college or had a successful career.  The desire to achieve some level of success and be a person of influence, took me down the path of education and empowerment of others.  By accessing education and entering the work force, I gained an understanding the challenges faced by women, especially women of color; this knowledge ignited a personal passion to inspire women to pursue leadership roles in all aspects of their lives.

What are some of the ongoing challenges girls face in America today and how do you personally hope to address them?

America is still not a place of equity for girls and women, particularly women of color.  My passion is to inspire and empower girls and women to pursue leadership roles in all aspects of their lives because if we have a voice, we can make a difference in society.  Writing a dissertation was one way that I could contribute to society in this area.  I also deliver key note addresses and sessions for women and girls on leadership development and empowerment.

Do you believe girls can identify with women like Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton, or are they too distant and exceptional to be role models?

I think any woman who is in a leadership role can be a role model.  However, seeing someone in a leadership role that “looks” like you or has a similar background, is the best way for girls and women to be inspired and believe they can be leaders and make a difference.

Aside from Rice and Clinton, what other notable women could serve as positive role models for girls?

For Latina girls and women, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has become an icon because we are proud of her accomplishment in breaking societal barriers, she “looks” like us, and an awareness has been awakened that we need more of her – more of us – in significant leadership roles at ALL levels of society.

If an average woman asks how she could be a role model to a girl or a younger woman, what would you say?

In each individual person’s life journey, they experience situations that teach them lessons; these experiences can help someone else along their path.  I believe we can all be role models to others.  I truly believe that I have stood on the shoulders of others who have paved a way for me to join a small group of Latinas with a Doctorate and that I – and all – should pave the way for others.

If a single father of a daughter asks what he could do to improve his child’s self-esteem, what would you tell him?

Single parents deserve so much credit for raising children alone because it is a hard job to raise children.  I believe that it takes many people to raise productive, hardworking people.  I would tell a single parent – mother or father – that hearing regularly how special you are, that you can change the world, that you need to believe in yourself, that your parent believes in you, and that you should access opportunities such as: education, are the foundation for improved self-esteem.  Also, helping your children access mentors and people that can teach them about access to higher education and various career options, as well as programs such as Girls Incorporated, where I work, can help empower kids and build their self-esteem so they can get far in life.

In the past few years, as the economy continues to struggle, more women than men are either returning to college, or staying in college to pursue higher levels of education.  What do you feel is the primary factor behind this trend?

Women have a nurturing nature and sharp instincts to provide and care for others.  When the pressure is on to succeed or they see closed doors, women understand the value of education in setting oneself apart from the competition.  Also, women may have entered the work force to provide financially without having the opportunity to further their education; the struggles provide the opportunity to pursue personal goals while preparing for better work opportunities and climbing the ladder of success.

I read an editorial many years ago that stated, while Black and Hispanic men often feel they’re victims of racism, their female counterparts more often feel they’re victims of sexism.  Do you feel this is true and why or why not?

While this has not been my experience, in my work with women, I have heard this come up quite a bit.  Some things I have heard are that women sometimes feel like their abilities are questioned based on how they look or dress.  Others have expressed being “sexualized” because they are a Latina which is supposed to mean they are “sexy” as opposed to smart or any other professional characteristic.  Women in society are still struggling for equity in various aspects of the workforce experience.  Women of color are struggling for the same but also to have a voice in society.  For example, women of color do not represent a significant part of the corporate/private sector in top leadership positions and corporate Boards.  There is much work to be done.

What are some of the educational and professional obstacles Latina women in the U.S. face?

According to my doctoral research study, Latinas face four critical obstacles: lack of mentors, lack of opportunities, cultural obligations, and family obligations.

Hispanics overall often have been reluctant to move far from home, since that means they’ll be separated from their families.  That’s starting to change, but do you think Hispanics generally have a stronger commitment to their families than to their professional lives?

This has been my experience – from choosing which college I would attend, to deciding if I wanted to move to another state.  The Hispanic value of family – immediate or extended family – is positive because it means you have a strong support network but also poses challenges in education and professional journeys; this is especially true for Latinas, as they have traditionally been expected to take care of everyone.  I wrote an article which was published in the Huffington Post, about “Latinas and Modern Marianismo” which touches on balancing traditional Latino values with modern Latina experiences.  Here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damary-bonillarodriguez/latinas-and-modern-marianismo_b_4165200.html.

Do you think affirmative action is still necessary?

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/affirmative-action) “Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.  A centuries-long legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated despite the gains made during the civil rights era.  Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow.  We need affirmative action now more than ever.”  I could not have said it better myself.

What do you hope for the general status of women in the U.S. in the next decade?

I am hopeful that as more women and women of color climb the ladder to hold highly visible and significant leadership positions across the country, doors will open so more women will have the opportunity to shine.  I am also hopeful that the in the next decade we will see a woman hold the highest political office in the country – the U.S. Presidency.

Would you like to add anything?

My doctoral research study abstract, in case anyone is interested in reading my dissertation.  Latinas face obstacles achieving proportionate representation in significant leadership roles.  This research aimed to identify characteristics unique to Latina leaders that represented shared values and beliefs of Latinas, and to understand positive factors and obstacles associated with Latina leadership in the United States.

Survey responses from three hundred thirty-five Latinas and four interviewees from across the U.S. suggested that there are forty-three characteristics an effective Latina leader should possess.  Four essential characteristics identified were: creative, good listener, optimistic/positive, and passionate.  The forty-three characteristics were categorized into five groups of similar characteristics to synthesize what study participants believed were essential characteristics of Latina leaders.  The categories were: high integrity, marianismo, new Latina, transformational leader, and visionary.  Pursuing the attributes of these five leadership categories will help Latinas who aspire to become leaders understand what it takes to be a successful Latina leader, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and enable them to create a plan of success for themselves.

Furthermore, study participants noted factors of positive influence on Latinas.  Six crucial positive influencers identified were: successful educational attainment, participating in leadership training, possessing self-confidence, having role models, religious influence, and family influence.  Study participants also noted factors which can be obstacles for Latinas.  Four critical obstacles identified were: lack of mentors, lack of opportunities, cultural obligations, and family obligations.

Literature about Latinas and Latina leadership is limited.  There is an urgent need for research about the topic(s).  This study was one step towards understanding the dynamics of Latina leadership in the U.S.  I urge Latinas to invest in themselves and become successful leaders so that together, we can make a difference in the world because this world needs Latina sazon (Latin seasoning).

9 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , ,

January 31, 2014 · 9:35 PM

Life Managing

The Muñoz family in happier times.

The Muñoz family in happier times.

In June of 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual conference in Dallas, Texas.  Aside from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and proselytizing against the evil Bill Clinton, the organization had one other item on its agenda: boycott the Walt Disney Company because of its new policy to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of its some of its employees

The day after convention-goers officially voted on the Disney boycott, the “Dallas Morning News” placed the story on its front page – complete with a color photograph of the assemblage holding up placards; their smug, arrogant expression displaying their true contempt for the company.

In the fall of 1995, Disney had joined a growing number of companies that took the bold step of instituting non-discrimination policies for its gay and lesbian associates.  That included offering identical benefits to the same-gender partners of these employees.  Because Disney catered so much to families, the move triggered a more vociferous response from right-wing politicians and their evangelical puppet masters.  It prompted some to malign Disney as the “tragic kingdom.”

Meanwhile, buried on page 3 of the ‘Metropolitan’ section of that same “Dallas Morning News” issue was a brief story on something I found even more alarming: approximately 40% of children in Texas at the time had no health insurance.  I literally stopped when I read that.  I presumed, in my naiveté about the human condition, that all infants and children were automatically covered by some type of health insurance.  The piece – all of half a page – highlighted a family who lived in a trailer park just outside Dallas.  I can’t remember the details, but both parents worked and had two kids.  The family was just one of hundreds across the state.  I looked again at the SBC gang on the front page and wondered if they were even aware of the trailer park family; a family that could barely take care of itself, much less go on a Disney cruise with untold numbers of homosexuals allegedly lurking behind the lounge chairs.

I thought about that situation again when the bizarre case of Marlise Muñoz arose.  Last November Muñoz, a 33-year-old paramedic, suffered an apparent pulmonary embolism at her home in Haltom City, a Fort Worth suburb.  Her husband, Erick, found her on the kitchen floor after she’d gotten up in the pre-dawn hours to prepare a bottle for their toddler son.  Two days later officials at John Peter Smith hospital declared Marlise brain dead.  Her husband and parents asked that she be removed from life support.  But, the hospital refused.  Marlise was about 14 weeks pregnant at the time, and the hospital cited a little-known state law, the Texas Advance Directives Act, that forbids the cessation of life-saving measures on a pregnant woman.  Passed in 1989, “Texas Statutes – Section 166.049: Pregnant Patients” is supposedly meant to protect the lives of the unborn.  It’s an adjunct to “Texas Statutes – Section 166.046: Procedure If Not Effectuating a Directive or Treatment Decision,” which addresses life support for individuals in comatose or vegetative states.

The usual cacophony of pro-life voices raised themselves in self-righteous indignation in support of the unborn Muñoz child.  Muñoz supporters reacted by pointing to a simple fact: the woman was brain dead.  If someone’s heart stops, it can be resuscitated with electric shocks; if the lungs collapse, air can be pumped back into them; if the kidneys cease functioning, the individual can be hooked up to a dialysis machine.  But, you can’t perform CPR on a person’s brain.  Once a person’s brain dies, that’s it!  There’s no coming back.  It’s why the brain stem is the first part of the human embryo to form.

People often joke about brain death.  I point out that it’s a symptom of many politicians and entertainment celebrities.  In fact, it’s almost a requirement among reality TV stars.  But, brain death is a seriously finite condition.

Yet, pro-life activists lined up outside John Peter Smith demanding the hospital do everything it could to save the life of Marlise Muñoz’s unborn baby.  And, the hospital was trying to do just that – pumping oxygen into the dead woman’s corpse.  Her flesh was beginning to rot, however, and her body was developing both external and internal sores.  Moreover, examinations of the fetus showed its lower extremities were so badly deformed no one could determine its gender.

Erick Muñoz finally resorted to legal action against JPS.  On January 24, State District Judge R.H. Wallace concurred and ordered the hospital to let Marlise go.  “Mrs. Muñoz is dead,” he wrote.  “Defendants are ordered to pronounce Mrs. Muñoz dead and remove the ventilator and all other ‘life-sustaining’ treatment from the body.”

JPS chose not to fight the order and removed Marlise from life support on the 26th; what was left of her body died five minutes later.  As a token of love and affection, Erick named the unborn baby Nicole, his wife’s middle name.  No longer held captive to a ghoulish medical experiment, Marlise’s family can now bury her and moved forward with their lives as best as possible.  Erick still has a toddler son to raise.

This entire imbroglio comes less than a year after Texas State Senator Wendy Davis launched an 11-hour filibuster against a law that imposed heavy restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.  It was a move that garnered international attention and propelled Davis to launch a bid for the governorship.  The Muñoz case and the Texas abortion law are related, albeit tangentially, because of that pro-life label so many ideological conservatives here and around the nation like to claim.

Pro-life advocates really aren’t pro-life – that is, in the truest sense of the term – they’re pro-birth.  For some perverted reason, they want to control human reproduction.  They declare that it’s for the good of humanity; a desire to give all babies a chance at life.  I suppose, however, they really just want more bodies to work in the fields and the factories, or to go to war so oil and energy companies can earn more profits.  If pro-lifers truly are in favor of life, they wouldn’t stand idly by as literally millions of people, including infants and children, go to bed hungry in this country every night.  While the evangelical crowd thinks they’re doing society a favor by protesting the perceived horrors of homosexuality, they ignore the real tragedy of the uninsured, which has grown exponentially since 1997.  Conservative Republicans in the U.S. Congress were eager to invade Iraq in 2003, but have been slow in providing pay increases to military personnel.  We can expect that from a pack of old lawyers whose own pay and benefits are secure.

And, we can expect pro-lifers to holler in contempt that people like Judge R.H. Wallace don’t value human life.  Some are already publicly shaming Wallace and demanding his impeachment.  But, if the U.S. values human life so much, it wouldn’t boast one of the highest homicide rates among developed countries.  It wouldn’t tolerate 49 million Americans living with food insecurity (as of 2012).  Pro-life doesn’t mean a society fights like hell to allow (or force) a pregnant woman to give birth.  It means it fights for the welfare of all its citizens.  Life may begin at conception, but it doesn’t end when the umbilical cord is cut.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , ,

January 20, 2014 · 8:32 PM

Civil Righting

the-constitution

Back in 2002, my then-roommate, Tom,* and I got into a discussion about racial and gender equality.  I stated that all of the various civil rights movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, starting with the abolitionist movement, were necessary to instigate change and make America live up to its declaration as a truly free and inclusive nation.  Tom merely shook his head no in a condescending fashion and said, “Nah,” later adding that eventually people would have “come around” and realize discrimination was wrong.

I looked at him like the fool he was and asked him if he sincerely believed that.  He said he did.  I then recounted the story of my father’s return from Korea in the mid-1950s.  He had been drafted into the U.S. Army and sent to the front lines in the midst of the Korean War.  Among the many friends he made were a large contingent of Black soldiers.  By then, the U.S. armed forces had been forcibly integrated, so a mix of ethnic groups comprised all the various military units.  My father didn’t serve his full two-year stint, as the war ended sooner than most anyone had expected.  He and several of his fellow soldiers arrived in Seattle via ship and then boarded a train to head to their various home cities.  My father was confused when his Black team mates started walking away from.  He called out to them, asking where they were going.  One told him they were headed towards the rear caboose – where Black people had to sit.  As he watched his friends, his brothers-in-arms, saunter down the platform, my father said to himself, “Oh yea, we’re back in America – land of the free.”

Tom just sort of looked at me, not knowing what to say.  He conceded it was wrong, even then, to force Blacks to sit at the back of a bus or a train.  But, he snapped out of his brief foray into actual reasoning and reiterated that eventually White people would have realized how unfair that was.  In other words, we didn’t bus strikes or protests of any kind.  People should have just waited around, hoping for the better.

No one should have to wait for justice and fairness.  Nobody should be straddled to the rocks of oppression and brutality – hoping, praying and begging for those in positions of power and influence to see the light.  Disenfranchised groups in the U.S. had waited for centuries to be treated with dignity and respect and to be given an equal chance to succeed.

I told someone else around the same time as my conversation with Tom that the 1960s exploded with anger and rage because patience had finally run out.  They’d done everything that had been asked of them: they served in the military; they worked hard; they cleaned homes and streets; they obeyed the laws (no matter how discriminatory they were); they tried as best to keep to themselves – everything.  And, they still weren’t given a fair chance.  Blacks still had to sit at the back of the bus; women still had to change their last names when they got married and still had to have children; Indians still had to live in squalor on reservations; gays and lesbians still had to suppress their true identities.

And so, by the 1960s, everything just sort of erupted at once.  If change didn’t come through peace and hard work, then it had to be forced.  America was compelled to fulfill its proclamation as a nation of freedom and opportunity.  It no longer had a choice in the matter.  The time had come to change – whether some folks liked it or not.

It was curious to hear Tom speak of racial and gender equality and inequality.  He was a mix of German and Cherokee; from a small, nondescript community in far northeast Texas.  We discussed the plight of Indigenous Americans more than once.  He felt that Indians could have fought back against European encroachers because they also had men.  I noted that Europeans had two primary advantages: guns and horses.  Moreover, they’d adopted both gunpowder and horse-riding skills from the Chinese.  Tom wasn’t moved.  And, I told him he now had the distinction of falling into two unique groups: those who aren’t educated about a subject and those who don’t want to be educated.  That’s actually a rarity, but one that persists even now; in this second decade of the 21st century with a biracial U.S. president and a shrinking White majority.

Attitudes really are hard to change.

*Name changed.

4 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , ,