About Wanderings

Each week I will post my current syndicated newspaper column that focuses upon social issues, the media, pop culture and whatever might be interesting that week. During the week, I'll also post comments (a few words to a few paragraphs) about issues in the news. These are informal postings. Check out http://www.facebook.com/walterbrasch And, please go to http://www.greeleyandstone.com/ to learn about my latest book.



Saturday, March 21, 2015

The Morality Police



By Walter Brasch

     In Saudi Arabia, the Mutaween are 3,500 public officials and thousands of volunteers who work for the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. They are responsible for enforcing strict religious laws. Among the many laws are those that require all women to wear head scarves and black gowns when in public.
     The “Morality Police” also exist in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several fundamentalist Arab countries.
It isn’t only in Arab countries that morals are regimented and institutionalized.
     In France, the minister of health, a physician, believes there should be laws to prohibit companies and advertisers from using anorexic fashion models. He believes overly thin models—the ones who can make six-figure incomes by being at least five-foot-eight, have high cheek bones and Size Zero bodies—gives the wrong impression to the youth who  starve themselves into emaciation to be seen as beautiful.
     He is right about that. But he is wrong to want laws to require the fashion industry to adhere to a set of minimum standards for appearance.
If there can be laws to regulate the portrayal of “healthy” models, what will prevent the system from prohibiting the depiction of plump or even fat models? Of course, in the fashion industry, a Plus-Size Model is anyone who is a Size 8, even though the average size in the United States is a Size 14.
     Should government regulate what people look like, even if they appear to be unhealthy. Or different?
     What about having black hair or dreadlocks? Should government determine that should also be banned?
     In the United States, the Morality Police regulate everything from the color of hair to what people do in their bedrooms.
     A high school in Missouri recently suspended a student for having “unnatural” hair color.  The student, a junior, is a natural redhead, but she decided to dye her hair auburn. Unfortunately, the commercial hair dye gave her what the school administrators thought was an unnatural color of red.
     That high school isn’t the only one with Puritanical rules. School administrators and their elected school boards throughout the country have somehow given themselves the right to create and enforce rules that prohibit students from wearing clothes that could impede the learning of other students. It might be logical to ban girls from wearing short-shorts and halter tops to class. Or, maybe guys who, on a hot day, decide to embarrass themselves and others by wearing nothing but Speedos to Biology class.
     But does it really matter what color someone chooses to dye her hair? Is an honors student with streaks of green in her blonde hair more of a threat to society than a mousy-brown haired sophomore who carries a D-plus average?
     What about a guy who decides to shave his head? Or wear his hair in a Mohawk style. Or a shag? What if he decides that a pale goatee improves his looks?
     Does hair style and color or even wearing homemade ear rings really impede the learning process enough to lead to suspension? Students try out different looks for any of a couple of dozen different reasons, and then often revert to what society believes is within the range of “normal.”
     But, even if the students decide they like pink hair or wearing a headband, why should school administrators decide to reign in creativity and enforce conformity? Aren’t there more important things to do in schools than to be the Morality Police?
Now, let’s look at the enforcement of laws outside of schools.
     In several states, it is still illegal for consenting adult partners to have oral sex. In several states, same-sex marriage is illegal. Should the nation be creating and enforcing laws that encourage voyeuristic Morality Police to look inside bedrooms and decree what is and is not acceptable?
     Should this nation—or any nation—arrest and convict a gay couple who have “unnatural” hair color? And should this nation be building more prisons and paying more for incarceration for pretend-crimes that have no impact to the rest of society than for education?
     In Georgia, Republican legislators have decided to allow freedom of religion. This seems like a good thing—especially since the First Amendment protects and advocates freedom of religion. But in this case, the law, which will probably be passed, bastardizes the intent of the First Amendment. That proposed law would allow businesses to discriminate against gays—as customers or employees—solely upon what a business owner claims is his or her religious right.
     The law, as written, would also allow those who beat their children or spouses a “get out of jail free” card if they can prove that violence is acceptable in their religion, even if there are no churches or preachers.
     Thus, in Georgia, it might be possible for a child molester to not be arrested, while a 16-year-old with blue-streaked hair be suspended or expelled from school.
     And we—loyal and patriotic Americans—complain about the Morality Police in certain Arab countries?! 
    [Dr. Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist, columnist, radio commentator, and the author of 20 books. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an overall look at the heath, environmental, political, and economic effects of fracking throughout the country.]

Friday, March 13, 2015

Sitcoms are No Laughing Matter

     


by Walter Brasch

      Neil Simon’s “The Odd Couple” didn’t need a laugh track when it debuted on Broadway in 1965. It didn’t need a laugh track when it became a movie three years later.
      In the first of five seasons as a TV series (1970–1975), it had a laugh track, primarily because the show was taped without a live audience. However, stars Jack Klugman and Tony Randall insisted upon a live audience. Beginning the second season, the show was taped before a live audience, with mild post-production sweetening from what became known as the “Laff Box.”
      “The New Odd Couple,” with black actors and an enhanced laugh track, lasted 18 episodes in the 1982–1983 season.
      The latest version debuted two weeks ago on CBS. It has a laugh track. A loud, annoying, intrusive laugh track. A laugh track that has little variation and makes it obvious the live-audience reaction at the tapings were muted in deference to forced canned laughter.
     The laugh track is so intrusive that the few quality writing lines and the acting are obliterated by what producers think is funny. And, funny comes at least every other line. By decree.
      This “Odd Couple” is not much different from many current 30-minute TV situation comedies.
      For some reason, writers and producers think sitcoms are a series of one-liners, with minimal plot that need artificial and intrusive laugh tracks. Even the Oscars and Emmy awards shows, broadcast live but with a seven-second delay in case anyone violates network standards and practices, use enhanced laughter to try to make the TV audience believe that lame jokes are really comedy.
      Producers of the better classic comedies either didn’t use laugh tracks or made sure the “sweetening” wasn’t intrusive. There was no laugh track for “I Love Lucy.” There was canned laughter and no audiences for the first two seasons of “Happy Days”; by the third season, production switched from single-camera to multi-camera, and audience reaction dominated analogue audio enhancements.
Several now-classic sitcoms—think of the “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” “The Carol Burnett Show,” “Newhart,” “Taxi,” “Cheers,” “All in the Family,” “Friends” and dozens of others—were defined by brilliant writing, strong direction, and excellent acting. Even “M*A*S*H,” one of the best comedies on TV, toned down its laugh track and used it sparingly after the first season. “Sex and the City” didn’t use a laugh track; “Welcome Back, Kotter” used it sparingly. Artificial laughter also wasn’t necessary for “The Simpsons,” “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show,” and “The Muppets.”
      No experienced TV Suit has yet demanded a laugh track for the better one-hour TV dramas—among them “NCIS” and “Castle”—that have an undercurrent of well-written humor, slipped seemingly effortless into the show. Further, the well-written, acted, and directed one-hour light dramas on the USA network—“Monk,” “Psych,” “Necessary Roughness,” “Royal Pains,” “White Collar,” and many other original series—have proven that laugh tracks are useless when quality supersedes contrived mechanical laughs. TV audiences know what’s funny and when to laugh, snicker, chuckle, or even guffaw.
      It’s harder to write quality comedy than tragedy and drama. So, maybe, that’s why the forced laugh tracks are necessary—especially for lines that are dry and uninspired.
      If the current “Odd Couple” plans to be around next season, it needs to strengthen its writing—and allow genuine audience reaction be its primary laugh track.
      Perhaps, TV audiences have become so accustomed to mediocrity they now believe that average productions are models of excellence. What else would explain the existence of the one-joke salacious “Two Broke Girls” and “Two and a Half Men”?
      If you want to hear non-intrusive laughter and clapping on a show with excellent writing and delivery, just tune into “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” It doesn’t need artificial laughter.


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

’Rithmatic Doesn’t Add Up in One School District

      


By Walter Brasch

      The Danville Education Association (Pa.) has been operating without a contract for three years.
      Two years ago, the teachers approved recommendations of an independent fact-finder; the board rejected it. This eventually led to a protest strike of five days in  April 2014. Recently, the teachers and the board agreed to submit their proposals to an independent arbitrator.
      Working under regulations of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, the arbitrator analyzed the district finances, tax base, and other data before making his recommendations. The arbitrator concluded the district had the money to pay the teachers more—not what the teachers asked, but more than the board was offering. He also recommended increased contributions by the teachers for their health benefits.
      The teachers voted to accept the recommendations. The board unanimously voted to reject the arbitrator’s recommendations, even though the arbitrator agreed with most of the board’s demands.
      The board claims it can’t afford the teacher raises. The overall budget for the 2014–2015 academic year is about $34 million. In addition, the district also has about $12.2 million in reserve, most of which the district says is for anticipated increases in health care premiums and unfunded mandates to improve the state retirement system; included is an unassigned reserve of about $2.1 million. In 2011, when the Board only had a $6.2 million surplus, the fact finder had recommended a 5.7 percent increase for teacher salaries for the 2015-2016 academic year. The arbitrator two years later recommended raises of 3.5 percent for each of the four years of the new contract.
      Of the 17 districts in the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit (CSIU), Danville teachers are ninth in average salary (about $52,000 a year). The district has the second highest average income of all districts in the CSIU. Teacher salaries and benefits are about 48 percent of the total budget, down from 51.1 percent in the 2009–2010 academic year.
     Every teacher pays 7.5 percent of his or her salary into a retirement account, in addition to 6.2 percent for social security contributions. The district, under federal law, also pays 6.2 percent social security contribution, but pays only 3.09 percent into the state pension fund, a slow increase from 1.18 percent in 2008–2009. (The state also pays 3.09 percent.) 
      Each teacher currently pays $1,453–$1,684 per year, depending on the plan, for health care. The arbitrator recommended the teachers increase their share of the total cost to 12 percent of the health care cost.
      Perhaps the board needed the money for its “Community Room.” That room, which will be the place for board meetings, includes a new sound system ($31,159), new carpet ($13,242), and new furniture ($8,551.06).
      Perhaps the board needed the money for an additional administrator ($69,209), or for the 3 percent increases for its administrative staff, which includes a salary of $133,900 for its superintendent, more than $60,000 higher than the highest pay earned by any teacher.
      Because of the teachers, the students have the highest academic scores on the Pennsylvania School Performance Profile; the high school is the only one in the state, one of only 340 in the nation, to have earned Blue Ribbon designation by the U.S. Department of Education. That honor is based upon academic excellence and/or progress in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups. 
      The board’s performance leaves some serious questions. The major question is why even go to arbitration if you don’t plan to listen to what is a fair settlement? Apparently, the board believes that only if the arbitrator agrees with all of its proposals should it accept the recommendations. This is not what arbitration is.
      However, there are two deeper issues. Some residents ignorantly claim that teachers work limited hours a day and only 180 days a year, not realizing that outside of class teachers also have preparation, grading, student and parent conferences, extracurricular advising, required training sessions, and meetings; the average worker, if taking into account weekends, sick days, vacation time, and holidays, works fewer hours a year than does the average teacher. The arbitrator said many of the letters he received from the public argued that the teachers are paid more than the general public in the district, and receive better benefits. These arguments are not uncommon in Pennsylvania.
      This is not the 19th century when teachers didn’t need a college degree, were primarily female—they were often called “school marms”—and worked for low wages and near-nothing benefits.
      Today, every public school teacher has a college degree and state certification. Every teacher is required to take additional classes. Most teachers are pursuing or have already earned master’s degrees. They are a part of the professional class. But, they are still behind their other colleagues who have similar education and years of experience.
      But, this doesn’t matter to those who may be envious that others make more than they do, a problem not just in Danville but throughout the state and nation.
      Here are two realities. First, high quality teachers—the ones who teach our children who will become our tradespeople, secretaries, physicians, social workers, firefighters, and scientists—are critical to any society, and should be paid well.
      Second, if the public is upset the teachers are paid more than they are, then they should do what the teachers have done successfully—Unionize and raise their own wages and benefits, rather than complain about others and try to drag their compensation down.

      [Among those contributing facts to this column were Dave Fortunato, president of the Danville Teachers Association; and Allan Schappert, president of the board of the Danville Area School District. Walter Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist, a former newspaper and magazine reporter and editor, and the author of 20 books. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the economic, political, health, and environmental effects of fracking throughout the country. Full disclosure: Dr. Brasch is a former teacher.]

America’s Real Traitors


by Walter Brasch


      The Tea Party wing of the Republican party thinks House speaker John Boehner is a rhino.
      Not the thick-skinned horned mammal that lives in Africa. This rhino is an R-I-N-O . . . Republican in Name Only.
      The Tea Party thinks Boehner, by sometimes listening to both sides and occasionally, but rarely, agreeing with some Democratic ideas, is a traitor. They believe anyone who disagrees with them is evil. A traitor. A RINO.
      The extreme right-wing is also delusional.
      John Boehner is as much a RINO as the one-ton plant eaters are Chihuahuas.
      The latest dust-up between the Speaker and the right-wing came when they wanted to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The Tea Party congressmen wanted to attach a condition to the funding. That condition would be to get rid of President Obama’s immigration policies. Vote to do that, and there would be consent among the right-wing to pass the Homeland Security budget. Disagree with them, and 30,000 federal workers would be laid off; the rest would be required to work without pay.
      That would include the Coast Guard. The Secret Service . The security guards at all airports. FEMA. And, ironically, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. You know, the agents who are the ones who enforce border protection and send undocumented workers back to their home countries.
      The Tea Party politicians are the ones who don’t want to help individuals – especially if it involves money. Let disabled veterans suffer–their mantra is they don’t want any new taxes.
      But, they have yet to oppose mass funding for defense, even if some of the funding went to projects the Pentagon decided wasn’t fiscally sustainable or necessary.
      And so, the Tea Party extremists threw their temper tantrum, threatening to block all funding for Homeland Security if they didn’t get their way.
      The President called for a clean bill. Authorize funding for Homeland Security. Deal with the immigration issues later. It made sense.
      Except to the right-wing.
      John Boehner, aided by moderate Republicans and Democrats, brought a clean bill to a vote. The House–with 52 Republicans opposed–passed the bill. The President signed it 10 minutes before the deadline.
      And for protecting the people of America, the Tea Party Republicans call the House speaker a RINO.
      Over in the Senate, 47 right-wingers, in violation of the federal Logan Act that bars interference in foreign affairs during negotiations, sent a vicious letter to Iran, trying to undermine the President’s legal and constitutional authority. Even the conservative New York Daily News condemned these senators, four of whom may become presidential candidates, none of whom believe in the Constitution and in the country.
      It’s not hard to see just who the real traitors are to America.
      Maybe it’s time to call those right-wingers who don’t believe in the country to call them what they are likely to become if they keep up their obstruction–extinct.
      [Dr. Brasch is a social issues journalist, and the author of 20 books. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the health, environmental, political, and economic effects of fracking throughout the country.]


Thursday, February 12, 2015

They Brand Cattle, Don’t They?


by Walter Brasch

      “Branding! We have to make you a brand!”
      “I’m not cattle,” I told my sometimes faux foil assistant Marshbaum, who had just burst into my office. “And if you think I’m getting a tattoo,” I replied, “my body isn’t a canvas.”
      “It’s sure wide enough,” Marshbaum flippantly replied. Before I could throw sheets of wadded up paper at him, he explained what he meant. “It’s not a fire-iron brand,” he explained. “It’s strategic marketing.”
      “I’m a journalist,” I reminded Marshbaum, “I don’t do that kind of thing.”
      “You will if you want to stay in business.”
      “I’ve been in this business four decades, and I’ve never been branded.”
      “That’s why we need you to do TV commercials,” he said.
      “I’m a print journalist,” I reminded him.
      “Yeah, well, not all of us are pretty enough for TV, but you still have to do a commercial! Just like Jennifer Anniston.”
      “As if she needs more money,” I sneered. “She’s got a net worth of something between $100 million and $150 million, depending upon which magazine you believe.”
      “You can never have enough,” said Marshbaum.
      “Yeah, that and her eight-figure salary for commercials that tell 45-year-old women they can dab junk on their faces and look like ingĂ©nues. She’s hawking hair products, beer, and some fragrance Besides, she’s taking money from low-income hard-working actors who do need the bucks.”
      “You said that before. And before. And before.”
      “It’s the truth,” I said. “A-list actors have branched into TV commercials. Selling everything from eyelash liners to prescription drugs to—”
      “Yeah, yeah, like that sorrowful Blythe Danner who’s got some kind of problem that keeps her on stage to break a leg.”
      “Exactly!” I replied. “It’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. The rich actors don’t need more money.”
      “But they do need exposure. TV and film aren’t enough. The red carpet isn’t enough. Being mentioned in the National Enquirer isn’t enough. They want it all, and to get it all, they need to be a brand. Corporate America loves it!”
      “There’s a lot that corporate America loves that just doesn’t matter to the rest of us.”
      “But it does matter. When you see Larry the Cable Guy, you think of bad heartburn. When Brooke Shields appears on the screen, you still think of her wearing Calvin Klein jeans with no underwear. And then you run out to your nearest box store and buy whatever they’re selling. Think you’ll do that if you see a commercial with some no-name talent?”
      “Some people,” I said, “already think I may be a no-name talent.”
      “And that’s why we need to brand you. Tie you to some product. It’d raise your profile, make you a brand, and make money for all of us.”
      “All of us?”
      “You don’t think I’d be doing all this for free, do you?! I have expenses. Besides, we’d have to pay for makeup, better clothes, a publicist, marketing manager, and a business manager. Then there’s your entourage. TV commercial talent has to have an entourage. That doesn’t come cheap.”
      “It comes a lot cheaper if I don’t do it at all.”
      “What?! And be responsible for even more unemployment? A whole industry needs you to brand yourself. You get exposure and money. And that will lead to more commercials. And more commercials lead to better recognition. And the advertisers will be ecstatic!”
      “Will it get me more readers?”
      “Don’t be ridiculous. If you get branded, you won’t need readers. You’ll live off your residuals from commercials.”
      “But I’m a journalist,” I again reminded him. “I write stories that give people information they need. Stories that affect people’s lives.”
      “TV commercials affect people’s lives. Where would America be if Ellen DeGeneres didn’t promote JCPenny’s or Michael Jordan wasn’t shilling Jockey underwear? Think you’d buy a Lincoln if millionaire Matthew McConaughey wasn’t telling you to do it?”
      “If I do this—and I probably won’t—what would I be selling? Cars? Watches?”
      “Toilet paper. It goes with your brand. A whole gaggle of conservative readers already say your column is full of—”
      “—great insight and sparkling language.”
      “Yeah. Sure. Something like that.”
      “Look, Marshbaum,” I said a bit testy, “I don’t need to be a brand. I do need to write my column for this week.”
      “I think you just did,” he said smugly.
      [Dr. Brasch’s latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the economic, political, health, and environmental effects of high-volume horizontal fracturing. Rosemary R. Brasch, who never once did a TV commercial when she was an actress, assisted on this column.]


Saturday, February 7, 2015

‘Made in America’ Just a Political Slogan to Conservatives




by Walter Brasch

     Conservatives in Congress have once again proven they are un-American and unpatriotic. This time, it’s because of their fierce approval for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
     The pipeline, being built and run by TransCanada, will bring tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. All the oil will be exported. Major beneficiaries, including House Speaker John Boehner, are those who invest in a Canadian company.
     Opponents see the 1,179-mile pipeline as environmentally destructive. They cite innumerable leaks and spills in gas pipelines, and correctly argue that the tar sands oil is far more caustic and destructive than any of the crude oil being mined in the United States. They point out the pipeline would add about 240 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They also argue that the use of eminent domain by a foreign corporation, in this case a Canadian one, to seize private property goes against the intent of the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain seizure, they also correctly argue, should be used only to benefit the people and not private corporations.
     Proponents claim it will bring jobs to Americans. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims the pipeline would create up to 250,000 jobs. However, the Department of State concludes that completion of the pipeline would create only 35 permanent jobs.
    The Republican-led House has voted nine times to force the President to approve completion of the pipeline. In January, with Republicans now in control of the Senate, a bill to support construction of the pipeline passed, 62–36. Congressional actions appear to be nothing more than political gesturing. The decision to approve or reject the pipeline is that of a recommendation by the Department of State and, finally, that of the President.
     However, the conservatives’ hatred of American workers became apparent in an amendment to the Senate bill. That amendment, submitted by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) would require, if the pipeline was approved, all iron, steel, and other materials used must be made in America by American companies. That would, at least, give some work to Americans. That amendment should have had widespread approval in the Senate, especially from the conservative wing that thrusts out its chests and daily proclaim themselves to be patriots of the highest order.
     But when the votes were counted, the Senate, by a 53–46 vote, rejected that amendment. Voting for “Made in America” were 44 Democrats, one independent, and one Republican. Voting against the amendment were 53 Republicans.
     The Republicans’ rejection of the amendment was expected. America’s corporate business leaders, most of them conservatives and registered Republicans, have freely downsized their workforce, outsourced jobs overseas, and proudly proclaimed their actions helped raise profits. Profits, of course, are not usually shared with the workers who make the product and then were terminated so American companies could use and exploit foreign labor, while the executives enjoy seven- and eight-figure salaries, benefits, and “golden parachute” retirement clauses not available to those whose labor built the companies and their profits.
     Corporations have also figured out how to best send their profits to banks outside the United States and, thus, avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Several Fortune 500 corporations, with billions of dollars in assets, pay no federal taxes. For money they keep in U.S. financial institutions, corporations have figured out numerous ways to use loopholes to bring their tax burden to a percentage lower than what the average worker might pay each year.
     Congress is a willing co-conspirator because it has numerous times refused to close loopholes that allow millionaires and the corporations to easily drive through those loopholes, while penalizing lower- and middle-class Americans.
     By their own actions—in business and, most certainly, in how they dealt with the Keystone XL amendment—the nation’s conservatives have proven that “Made in America” and “American Pride” are nothing more than just popular slogans.
     [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning journalist and proud member of several unions, is the author of 20 books. The latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the economic, political, environmental, and health effects of horizontal fracturing in the United States.]



Saturday, January 24, 2015

Divesting America of Ozone-Destroying Energy Sources




by Walter Brasch

    Long before the price of gas and oil began to plummet, socially conscious churches, universities, non-profit organizations, and local governments began to divest themselves of fossil fuel stock and shock the fossil fuel industry to understand the environmental and public health concerns.
    The World Council of Churches, which represents about 590 million Christians in 520,000 congregations, decided in July that to continue to hold fossil fuel stock would compromise its ethics, and recommended that the 349 member denominations consider divesting oil and gas stock.
     Six of the eight Anglican dioceses of New Zealand and Polynesia, and four dioceses in Australia divested their portfolios of fossil fuel stock.
     In the United States, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist churches became the first denominations to begin to divest themselves of fossil fuel stock. Both denominations have a long history of fighting for social justice.
     Also divesting are Quaker, Episcopal, and several other denominations. Several synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America have passed resolutions asking the national board and local churches to divest themselves of fossil fuel stocks.
     The Union Theological seminary, with a $108.4 million endowment, became the nation’s first seminary to divest itself of fossil fuel stock. The Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, the seminary’s president, explained the decision: “It is ever clear that humanity’s addiction to fossil fuels is death-dealing—or as Christians would say, profoundly sinful.”
     Several religious groups that have shares in Chevron asked the corporation in 2011 to go “above and beyond regulatory requirements” to protect the environment and public health. Chevron flippantly dismissed the request. The corporation claimed, it “is already committed to meeting or exceeding all applicable laws and regulations [and the suggestions] would merely duplicate Chevron’s current efforts and thus would be a waste of stockholder money.”
    College students, staff, and faculty have been active in pushing their institutions to eliminate fossil fuel stocks from their portfolios. The result has been an awareness of a social issue that was not seen since students pressured their colleges to divest funds in tobacco companies and in corporations that dealt with the apartheid government of South Africa.
    “If we don’t deal with climate change now, we consign our grandkids to an unlivable planet,” said Unity College president Dr. Stephen Mulkey. Unity, which became the nation’s first college to divest its endowment portfolio of fossil fuel stock, specializes in environmental and natural sciences.
    Among three dozen colleges and universities that have committed to divesting their portfolios of fossil fuel stock are Foothill–DeAnza Community College, Green Mountain College, Humboldt State University, San Francisco State University, the University of Dayton, and Hampshire College, which in 1977 in protest of apartheid policies, was the first U.S. college to eliminate all stocks related to South Africa.
    Pitzer College, a liberal arts college in Southern California, divested about $4.4 million of its $5.5 million in fossil fuel stock in December, and pledged to work to eliminate most of the rest of the stock in fossil fuel industries. The college has about a $124 million endowment.
    Stanford University announced in May it would no longer hold stock in the coal industry, but did not include divesting oil and gas stock in its $18.7 billion endowment fund. About 300 Stanford University professors published an open letter to the administration this month to request the university divest itself of all fossil fuel stock. Among the signers were Drs. Elizabeth A. Hadley, senior associate vice-president; Donald Kennedy, former Stanford president; Roger Komberg, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; and Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Prize winner in physics.
    However, Harvard University, whose $32.7 billion endowment is the largest among educational institutions, doesn’t plan to eliminate fossil fuel stocks from its portfolio. Harvard President Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust told the New York Times that in spite of wide-scale student protests, eliminating fossil fuel stocks is not “warranted or wise,” and that the university’s portfolio is “a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.”
    David Crane, CEO of NRG, one of the nation’s leading energy providers, said he didn’t “relish the idea that year after year we’re going to be educating a couple million kids from college, who are going to be American consumers for the next 60 or 70 years, that come out of college with a distaste or disdain for companies like mine.”
    The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, founded on income from oil exploration and development, declared in October it would divest fossil fuel stock. Stephen Heintz, president of the $860 million philanthropic foundation, said his executives had already divested its portfolio of coal and tar sands stocks. Heintz said the Foundation will invest in more renewable energy companies.
    Several dozen U.S. cities and counties, as early as 2012, have begun the process to divest themselves of fossil fuel stocks and to urge their independent pension boards to divest. San Francisco in April 2013 began divesting about $580 million of fossil fuel stock, and by 2019 will stop purchasing stock of any company associated with fossil fuel exploration and development. Seattle, Wash., Mayor Mike McGinn in December 2013, a month before leaving office, asked the city’s pension board, which oversees a portfolio of about $1.9 billion, to “begin exploring options for moving existing investments from fossil fuel companies.” The city had $17.6 million invested with ExxonMobil and Chevron.
    Investing in renewable energy, especially with the increase in jobs in those industries and the rapid decline in the costs of solar and wind energy to consumers, appears to be the better investment strategy—and one that sends a message that protection of public health and the environment, combined with stopping the destruction of the ozone layer, is far more important than destroying the Earth.
   [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning social issues journalist, is author of 290 books, including Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the effects of high volume horizontal fracturing.]


Friday, January 16, 2015

The Fascist Socialist Kenyan Muslim Libtard President


  
by Walter Brasch

      Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), like many Americans, was upset that President Obama did not go to Paris to personally show his solidarity with France, and publicly mourn the 12 journalists and the four French citizens killed in terrorist attacks.
      Like many Americans, both liberal and conservative, Rep. Weber made his views publicly known. However, he crossed the line of decency when he tweeted, “Even Adolph Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris. (For all the wrong reasons.) Obama couldn’t do it for the right reasons.”
      The response to the tweet led Weber to issue a retraction and apology. “I now realize that the use of Hitler invokes pain and emotional trauma for those affected by the atrocities of the Holocaust and victims of anti-Semitism and hate,” he said in his official apology.
      As comparison attacks go, Weber’s was not the most offensive. Six years into Barack Obama’s eight-year presidency, others have directly linked him to Hitler. In Tea Party rallies, it isn’t unusual to find pictures of the President with a Hitler-like mustache. On uncountable messages and rants posted in social media or written for online and print media, the reactionary right wing call the President a dictator, a fascist, and a Nazi.
      When they’re not comparing the President to Hitler, they say he isn’t a citizen. Apparently, they believe Hawaii is a foreign country. They fail to recognize that his mother was a U.S. citizen, making Obama an American. They called for his birth certificate. And so he showed a birth announcement from a Hawaiian newspaper and a long-form birth certificate—which they promptly dismissed as fraudulent. But, the only fabrication was a fake Kenyan birth certificate, widely accepted by the right-wing but easily proven to be a fraud. Nevertheless, with flimsy evidence, they filed suits to get his election victories thrown out, claiming he was really born in Kenya. However, every court has thrown out the suits filed by the “birthers.”
      When not challenging his birth, they have called him a Muslim, stressing his middle name “Hussein” as evidence and slyly trying to tie him to the now-deceased Iraqi dictator. But, the right-wing, clinging to the flag and the Constitution, desecrate the former by not understanding the latter. Even if President Obama is a Muslim, he could be president. He could also be a Jew, a Hindi, a Heathen, or an atheist. The Constitution specifically allows anyone who is an American citizen, over the age of 35, and who lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years to be president. A person’s religion—or lack of one—has no basis to deny a person the Constitutional right of the presidency.
      Many, with no proof other than what they hear on right-wing talk radio, have called him an Arab, stupidly believing that the worst thing is to be an Arab Muslim born in Kenya. Believing that also deflects criticism that they are attacking the President for being Black.
      Even being an Arab Muslim Kenyan dictator isn’t good enough. And so, they dig into the Cold War era, toss in “Commie” and “Pinko,” and then sprinkle it with “socialist.” Of course, that would make him the only Muslim socialist in the world, a distinction so ludicrous that would bring tears of laughter to the terrorists of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
      When not attacking the President, the right-wing attacks liberals, who are believed to be the earthly incarnation of the Devil. To the extreme right-wing, liberals are DemocRATS, DIMocrats, and libtards. The left-wing merely shakes their heads at such juvenile terminology.
      President Obama and his party aren’t the only ones who have been attacked in history.
      During the first decades after the Revolutionary War, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were vicious in their attacks upon each other. “If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington,” wrote Benjamin Franklin Bache editor of the widely-read Aurora. In retaliation, Federalists destroyed the Aurora office and beat Bache, Franklin’s grandson. The Federalists, uniting behind Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, and the Anti-Federalists, uniting behind Thomas Jefferson, spewed lies and hate, often through newspapers.
      The 1828 presidential election put incumbent John Quincy Adams against Andrew Jackson.  Mudslinging by supporters of each candidate continued to drag the four-decade old country into a deeper campaign war of name-calling and personalities rather than ideas.
      Abraham Lincoln—another tall skinny president—was called a monkey, and portrayed in numerous editorial cartoons as an ape. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, born into a WASP culture, was demonized as a “secret Jew,” with his critics emphasizing his name as “Roo-sevelt.” Protestant candidates vilified Catholic opponents; Catholics maligned Protestants. And everyone despised the Jews and other minorities.
      The hatred and disrespect shown by the Tea Party wing of the Republican party may not be unique or unusual. But it emphasizes that when you can’t argue on principles and policies, you resort to name calling.
      [Dr. Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist and the author of 20 books. His current book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the effects of horizontal fracturing throughout the country.]

     

Friday, January 9, 2015

A Textbook Case of Willful Distortion



by Walter Brasch


      HarperCollins says it’s sorry. It says it regrets not including Israel on a map of the Middle East in an atlas it published and distributed in the Middle East. It says all remaining copies of the atlas will be pulped.
      The Collins Primary Geography Atlas for the Middle East with a map that omitted Israel was described by the publisher in sales information as “an ideal school atlas for primary school geographers.” A fact checker, says a security officer for HarperCollins—the company refused to allow anyone from its Editorial, Marketing, or Media Relations offices talk to reporters—was “disciplined.” But, this was not a case of a bumbling fact checker who didn’t check the facts. This was a willful and deliberate decision by executives of the HarperCollins subsidiary, Collins Bartholomew, which concentrates on maps, to wipe Israel off the map—literally.
      The reason, said the company, was because of “local preferences.” In this case, “local preferences” means, said a representative for Collins Bartholomew, to include Israel on a Middle East map would be “unacceptable” to certain Middle East countries. “Unacceptable” translates solely as a loss of sales.
      The omission was discovered by Bishop Declan Lang and reported in The Tablet, a Catholic news weekly published in England. Lang told the Tablet that the publication of the atlas with Jordan and Syria covering the space of Israel “will confirm Israel’s belief that there exists a hostility towards their country from parts of the Arab world [and] will not help to build up a spirit of trust leading to peaceful coexistence.” Dr. Jane Clements, director of the Council of Christians and Jews, told the Tablet, “Maps can be a very powerful tool in terms of de-legitimising ‘the other’ and can lead to confusion rather than clarity.”
      Only after the Tablet’s news story was published—and HarperCollins subsequently received extensive condemnation from throughout the world—did the company issue a one-paragraph apology, which it posted on Facebook, and remove the atlas from sale.
      In 2001, HarperCollins stopped distribution of a book by Michael Moore, although there were 50,000 copies in its warehouse about to be released to bookstores. The company demanded that Moore kill three chapters of the book and pay the company $100,000 for print costs of the revised book. The chapters attacked President George W. Bush and raised questions about corporations and the government. HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which also owns Fox News.
      These aren’t isolated instances of a publisher using the power of the press to change facts and suppress truth. Ever since 1948, when Israel was declared a country, publishers in countries hostile to Israel have not only refused to acknowledge Israel but have excluded it from maps and travel routes.
      Majority cultures write the histories, and their texts often reflect their biases and political agenda. During the twentieth century, Japanese texts overlooked the slaughter of thousands of Chinese civilians; Soviet texts under the Stalin regime failed to include the work of Leon Trotsky or mention America’s massive economic and humanitarian assistance to that country; and the texts of all countries reported little about the Holocaust.
      Publishers in America, trying to reap the widest possible financial benefit by not offending anyone, especially school boards, often force authors to overlook significant historical and social trends. For more than a century, books which targeted buyers in the North consistently overlooked or minimized Southern views about the Civil War; other books, which targeted a Southern readership, discussed the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
      Almost all media overlooked significant issues about slavery, the genocide against Native Americans, the real reasons for the Mexican-American War, the seizure of personal property and subsequent incarceration of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, the reasons why the United States went to war in Vietnam, the first Gulf War and, more recent, the war in Iraq.
      Textbook publishers, choosing profits over truth, often glossed over, or completely ignored until years or decades later, the major social movements, including the civil rights, anti-war and peace movements of the 1960s and the emerging environmental movement of the 1970s. It was the underground and alternative press that presented the truth that the establishment press under-reported or refused to acknowledge, timidly accepting the “official sources.”
      To establish standards for the study of history in the public schools and to correct some of the nation’s textbook wrongs, the National Endowment for the Humanities, under Congressional mandate, gave $1.75 million to UCLA’s National Center for History in the Schools to bring together a wide range of academics to study the problems and to recommend a model text that would present history as it was, rather than what we hoped it was. The concept was good; the execution was abysmal.
      The Center rightly determined that texts were “sugar-coating” and distorting American history, that there was an over emphasis upon a recitation of facts and in recounting the deeds of a few people, mostly white males, but far too little discussion about major trends and social issues that defined the American republic.
      But, the Center did exactly what it condemned. In a 271-page document at the end of 1994, it presented a distorted overview that the formation of the United States was a convergence of Islamic, African, and European influence, and discounted western European influence. It claimed the nation’s history is little more than struggle, conflict, and the abuse of the rights of people. It barely discussed the historic role of a free press and of free speech, mentioned the Gettysburg Address only briefly, and relegated the complexities of the “cold war” as merely a “quarrel” among imperialistic nations.
      The Committee’s proposed guidelines, although rightly adding many civil rights leaders, left out Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, and the Wright Brothers among many other scientists; it overlooked Daniel Webster and other major diplomats and politicians; and it gave few lines to innumerable creative artists. However, the emperor of an ancient African civilization was praised, as were numerous individuals, often female or of minority cultures, who were merely footnotes in America’s 300-year history.
      Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels correctly argued that if someone tells a lie long enough and with enough intensity, it becomes the truth. But, poet John Milton gave a greater truth three centuries earlier. “Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” he rhetorically asked.
      Publishers may whitewash certain facts or movements. They may even eliminate certain truths in order to increase sales. But, eventually, truth will emerge.
      [Dr. Brasch is the author of 20 books, all of which were fact-checked. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the economic, health, and environmental effects of horizontal fracking throughout the country. He is an award-winning journalist and professor emeritus of mass communications.]