Bathrooms are the New Battlefields for Politicians

by Walter Brasch

      When I was a junior at San Diego State, I had a sudden urge to need a restroom. The closest one was clearly marked, “Faculty Men Only.” The nearest one for male students was on the other side of the building.

      I did what any rational person would do—I used the faculty restroom.

      One of the professors, who was using a urinal a couple spaces away, told me the restroom was for professors only. (I assumed there were separate restrooms for staff.) “What department are you in,” asked the prof.

      In my deeper voice, I responded I was with sociology, hoping he knew little about the sociology faculty.

      “Just out of grad school?” he asked.

      “Yeah,” I replied, hoping that I looked much older than my 19 years. I wasn’t lying. I was “with sociology”—as a student, though. And, since I had no plans to go to grad school, I was truly “out of grad school.”

      The prof. said nothing more, apparently finished with emptying his bladder and, hopefully, needing to rush to the sink and then a class.

      That brief encounter burnished a memory into my mind.

      San Diego State no longer separates students from staff or faculty, but states do discriminate.

      Twenty-two states have filed suits in federal courts to block a federal government regulation requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms of whichever sex they identify with.

      The Department of Justice says the new regulation conforms to the will of the Civil Rights Act. The attorneys general of the states that filed the suit claim the government’s regulation is an over-reach that violates the authority of local school districts while also violating student, staff, and faculty privacy. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch says the regulation is enforceable. Jay Kaplan, an attorney with the Michigan ACLU, told the AP the suits are not only a waste of taxpayer funds but also “an assault on the dignity of transgender youth.” Perhaps society is best served by separating politicians from the public—straight male Democratic politician; lesbian female Republican politician; there could be 10 or so such restricted restrooms to identify most sexual and genetic orientation.

      Unlike gays and lesbians (who identify with persons of the same sex), transgender individuals—unlike actors and entertainers (many known as drag queens or drag queens) who portray persons of the opposite sex—are those whose fetal brains and gene structure, rather than external anatomy, identify them by gender rather than sexual orientations. Transitioning requires more than surgery; the anatomy and genetics are just a part of who an individual is.

      Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the mid-1970s determined that LGBT individuals did not suffer from psychological disorders or mental illness and had to be “cured.”

About 6 percent of Americans (1.4 million) identify as transgender, with California, Florida, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, having the highest proportion of transgender individuals, according to a study from UCLA.

Like gays and lesbians, most transgender individuals hide their identities until at least when they become adults because of the fear of discrimination. A study by Angela Dallaria for GLAAD revealed about 90 percent of all transgender individuals believe they are discriminated at work and in receiving health care. They are not protected under civil rights laws of most states. However, in 2010, New York extended equal rights to the LGBT individuals.

Numerous scientific and criminal justice studies have discredited the belief that LGBT individuals have any tendency toward bestiality, child abuse, incest, or pedophilia. “Such claims, innuendoes, and associations,” according to GLAAD, “often are used to insinuate that LGBT people pose a threat to society, to families, and to children in particular.”

      Discrimination against LGBT individuals because of dictates in the Bible or Koran are easily dismissed. As their societies have become enlightened, there are numerous verses and requirements of daily living that are no longer practiced by Christians and Muslims, nor any other religion. Both Jews and Christians, using the same Old Testament, have different interpretations of their religious literature. Most Jews, as well as several Protestant denominations, tend to be more tolerant and accepting of the LGBT community; most evangelical Christians tend to be more discriminatory. Pope Francis urged Catholics to be more tolerant and accepting of non-heterosexual individuals, writing, “A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws . . .  as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.”

      And yet, 22 U.S. states have filed suits to force those who honestly believe they are a different gender than their external anatomy to use “gender-appropriate” restrooms.

      Pre-pubescent children of all sexual and gender identities play together—and accept each other. Discrimination later in life comes from parents, relatives, the media, and general society. Most children, probably from fears of bullying and harassment, will still use restrooms that are marked the same as their external anatomy.

      It is time to have teachers and school boards retrained, using psychological and medical studies, and for the federal rules to be implemented for those who identify as LGBT individuals. Perhaps in another generation or two, public restrooms for all individuals will be acceptable, unlike the classrooms that were once common and accepted at my undergraduate university, and are still accepted throughout the country. In the meantime, politicians should be focusing more on greater issues than who uses a bathroom.

      [Dr. Brasch is an award-winning journalist and professor emeritus from the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. His latest book is Fracking America: Sacrificing Health and the Environment for Short-Term Economic Benefit.]

     

     

     

      

Donald Trump v. The First Amendment

by Walter Brasch

      If Donald Trump should become president, don’t expect his administration to be a transparent one or one that tolerates dissent and believes in the First Amendment.

      At his campaign rallies, even those held at public venues, he forbids, according to his press advisories, “homemade signs, banners, professional cameras with a detachable lens, tripods, monopods, selfie sticks, back packs or large bags.”

      The restriction on “professional cameras” is targeted to the media. Apparently, he doesn’t want unflattering pictures of him and his extra large baggage mouth to get to the public, although he is adept at positioning himself in front of the media for every possible story angle. If he were president, he would not have a choice of who can and cannot photograph him, because the First Amendment guarantees that public officials cannot invoke a “prior restraint,” which is what a restriction on photography would be.

      Why he doesn’t want “back packs or large bags” is probably because he fears weapons at his rallies. Of course, he has said numerous times that he believes in the Second Amendment right to own and carry weapons, even assault weapons like the handguns and semi-automatic assault rifles that were used to kill 26 at the Sandy Hook elementary school, the 14 killed in San Bernardino, and the 49 killed in an Orlando nightclub.

      Not allowing the public to make signs and banners is such a huge violation of the First Amendment that even the most rabid conservatives, and every judge—no matter what their judicial or political philosophy is—would laugh themselves silly at Trump’s belief that as a president he could control the message, like he is doing as a candidate.

      Trump also revoked the press credentials of several newspapers, including the Washington Post and the Des Moines Register, solely because he and his combed-over ego believe the publications didn’t treat him fairly or that they were inaccurate in coverage. If he were to become president, such restriction would also be unconstitutional because having a thin skin is not a reason to deny press credentials.

      Access to a president is critical for White House reporters. Legally, Trump may decide not to grant interviews or to allow certain reporters to accompany him on Air Force One, placing those he believes are unfriendly to him to a trailing press plane. To gain access, reporters may compromise their reporting.

      Trump follows the practices of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

      Nixon not only had an enemies list, but he also unleashed numerous unconstitutional First Amendment violations against dissenters and the media, including numerous “dirty tricks” against those opposing the war in Vietnam.

      The Bush–Cheney administration established “free speech zones” as far as a mile from where either Bush or Cheney were speaking. These zones were to keep dissenters and their signs and banners away from the media, most of which followed the president and vice-president, and ran stories and photos of friendly audiences, while not venturing off to write about and photograph the large crowds that disagreed with the administration’s policies.

      Trump will figure out how to skirt the First Amendment at his public speeches while crossing ethics guidelines.

      In 1789, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

      The First Amendment protects not just freedom of the press and speech, but also the freedom of religion, the right of people to peacefully assemble and support or dissent from government policy, and the right to petition government to address grievances. Most public officials, while running for office demand adherence to the First Amendment, but once in office try to suppress some of the rights of the First Amendment. If elected, Trump would probably be among the top five of 45 presidents to try to control the media and violate the First Amendment.

      [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning journalist is also a First Amendment scholar and advocate who taught media law while a university professor. As a reporter, he wrote about Nixon illegally reviewing IRS returns of other reporters and those on his enemies list; the following year, “coincidentally,” his own IRS return was audited. He was also thrown out of a Dick Cheney re-election rally at a public university, although he had press credentials issued by the Republican National Committee. The latest of his 20 books, Fracking America: Sacrificing Health and the Welfare for Short-Term Economic Benefit, includes numerous case studies of government violating the First Amendment.]

     

     

      

Memorial Day Crocodile Tears from Those Who Create Wars

      

by Walter Brasch

      A few million Americans may be thinking about it, but won’t be celebrating Memorial Day. For them, there’s not much to celebrate or to remember.

      They’re the low-wage employees who may have to work all three days, without overtime; about three million workers earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Many work 30 to 35 hours a week, just low enough that their employers don’t have to pay for insurance, holidays, or sick leave. The corporate CEOs, of course, will be enjoying the long weekend at their alternate vacation homes in the mountains, or along the coasts, or at off-shore islands where they have found banks willing to hide their money and avoid U.S. taxes.

      Almost 600,000 persons are homeless on any given night. They are homeless for any number of reasons, but whatever reason, the reality is they are homeless—and the wealthiest nation in the world cheers $10 million a year pro athletes, but discounts social workers who have graduate degrees and are paid an average of about $46,000 a year.

      The homeless live beneath bridges, in subway tunnels, on the streets, or if the shelters aren’t filled, in protected areas with cots for beds, and grocery carts for what few possessions they have. In Atlantic City, the homeless live beneath the boardwalk, unseen by hundreds of thousands who go into casinos, buy expensive dinners, and think nothing of dropping a few hundred or a few thousand dollars at gaming tables and slot machines. In urban cities, those with jobs and families walk by the homeless, as if they are invisible, sometimes erroneously thinking that even if the homeless get a dollar or two, they’d rush off to buy beer, liquor, or more drugs.

      About 50,000 of the homeless on any given night are veterans, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Overall, more than 150,000 veterans are homeless during the year. The reasons for veterans being homeless are because of “extreme shortage of affordable housing, livable income and access to health care . . . lingering effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse, which are compounded by a lack of family and social support networks,” according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Under the Obama administration, which has focused upon assisting veterans, the number of homeless veterans on any given night has come down from about 80,000 six years ago, but even a few dozen homeless veterans are far too many.

      Hundreds of thousands of veterans won’t be able to march in Memorial Day parades, or stand and salute the flag. They don’t have limbs, their muscles have atrophied because of extensive bed confinement, or they have other debilitating illnesses. About 2.2 million American veterans were injured during their service; about 1.7 million of them were wounded in combat, according to a Pew Research Center summary and analysis. About 200,000 military personnel who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder of have major depression, according to a study done by the Rand Corp. About 285,000 of the veterans of America’s most recent wars have suffered from traumatic brain injury. Among other injuries, according to the VA are chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, fibromyalgia, hearing difficulties, hepatitis, malaria, memory loss, migraines, sleep disorders and tuberculosis.

      More than 120,000 Americans won’t celebrate Memorial Day; they died in combat during the Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

      During this three-day weekend, Americans will grill steaks, burgers, and hot dogs; they will travel to relatives’ or friends’ houses, or take mini-vacations. The nation’s politicians—from small town council members to presidential candidates—will go from picnic to picnic, from rally to rally, and deliver poignant speeches about how much they care about the veterans who were injured or died for their country, and how much veterans mean to the country, while delivering the underlying message to vote for them in the coming election.

      But, it is these politicians who, without hesitation, will quickly send American youth into war, and claim that killing people a half-world away somehow protects American citizens. And once Americans are in combat, these same politicians will complain about the cost of war, and vote against providing adequate funds for decent medical and psychological treatment for those who come home damaged.

      [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning journalist and the author of 20 books, is co-founder of the Northeast Pennsylvania Coalition for the Homeless.]

The 24/7 Election and Media Carousel

by Walter Brasch

      The national news media—and their sidekicks, the cackling pundits—had been asking the same questions the past six months. “Will he? Won’t he? Should he? Shouldn’t he? Can he? Can’t he?”

      The “he” is Joe Biden. The vice-president said numerous times he was still thinking about running for president, but hadn’t made up his mind. The Biden question kept the media busy speculating about an issue that even Mr. Biden couldn’t answer, nor should he have been forced to make a commitment in the media’s time frame.

      This past week, he decided not to run for the presidency.

      Although Biden explained his reasons, the media can now spend a few weeks asking the question, “But what if he had decided to run?” It passes as what the media now think is a deep and probing issue.

      The general election is still more than a year away, and we’re seeing, hearing, and reading about the campaign. There is little in-depth reporting about policies and issues, and a lot of superficial reporting about personalities. The 24/7 news cycle has become constant repetition with minimal information.

      It is this journalistic ineptness that has kept Donald Trump in the media’s spotlight. Whatever the issue, the media breathlessly rush to Trump for a comment. He is getting more TV air time than A-list actors and the rest of the Republican field combined. It’s difficult to find stories that quote anyone other than Trump or Ben Carson, Trump’s main competition at this point in the election cycle.

      It is this also this journalistic ineptness that has also focused upon Hillary Clinton, who may be the Democrats’ heir-apparent to the White House. While the media focus upon Clinton, they keep believing that Bernie Sanders is just a campaign distraction, and have given him little thought, even though he is bringing as many as 20,000 voters to his rallies, and making major speeches, all of which have substance. The voices of the other two major Democratic candidates are muted by the media that have made decisions for the rest of us.

      It’s nearly impossible to find stories about similarities and differences among the candidates of both parties. It’s even rarer that the mainstream media are challenging the statements of the major candidates, pointing out errors, semi-truths, and outright lies. For many, the attempt to be “fair” means allowing the subjects to have a megaphone; the search for the truth has been fumbled, with the media role apparently being that of Charlie Brown falling down after Lucy pulls the football away at the last moment.  

      From Iowa, where the candidates and media will congregate in December for the Feb. 1 election, we’ll learn that all of the candidates say they love pork and corn, the farm life, and the spirit of those in one of the flattest states in the country. In New Hampshire, which has its primary a week later, we’ll learn the candidates think granite is the best kind of rock, and support the quiet rural life, and the spirit of those in New England. In South Carolina, the media will report that the candidates have each declared they believe whatever it is that South Carolina believes. What’s left of the candidates will make their way into Pennsylvania for the primary on April 26, near the end of the campaign season. In the Keystone State, we’ll hear them say they love cheese steaks. When the candidates are in the eastern part of the state, they  will proclaim their love for the Phillies;  when in the western half, they’ll root for the Pirates. Everywhere else, they’ll praise the rural life. The media, of course, will report all this—unless a Kardashian sneezes, in which case the media will run shove aside political coverage for the more important late-breaking news.

      While focusing upon the Democrats and Republicans, the media will ignore candidates for the other political parties, perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy of ignorance that they don’t have a chance to be president—and therefore their views are meaningless.

      During the coming year, we will be subjugated to dozens of robo-calls from celebrities, politicians, friends of politicians, union and business leaders. We will be exposed to hundreds of TV ads. We will receive several dozen flyers and postcards. Our e-mail will be jammed with junk, much of them asking for donations. Our landscape will be overrun by campaign signs and billboards. We will see, hear, and read the comments of pundits who know little about government and a lot about show business. The campaign media cost for just the two emerging Democratic and Republican nominees will be over $1 billion each. Television stations will embrace the race for the primaries; newspapers will settle for advertising for local candidates.

      In slightly more than two weeks, Americans will vote for candidates for city and county offices, and for judges. These candidates have immediate and direct affect upon the people. We must learn more about them, their beliefs and principles. We must force the media to do in-depth coverage.

      And, most important, we must vote in this election—even if the presidential candidates aren’t on the ballot.

[Dr. Brasch is a former newspaper and magazine reporter and editor who covered politics and government for four decades. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania.]

A Memorial Day Truth

      It’s the third and final day of the Memorial Day weekend.

      Millions of Americans are visiting friends and relatives, perhaps taking a three- or four-day mini-vacation. They may be at pool parties and grilling burgers, hotdogs, veggies, and whatever else appeals to them.

      The nation’s politicians are going to Memorial Day rallies. There will be speeches and music. American flags and bunting will drape the stages. The politicians will tell us about the “ultimate sacrifices” American servicemen and women made. They will tell us how wonderful America is, how we are the best country in the world, how we defend freedom and remember those who put their lives on the line to do so. The crowds, whether a few or thousands, will applaud vigorously.

      Some will even say that the VA hospitals need a complete overhaul, that Gen. Eric Shinseki--who was wounded and earned three Bronze Stars for bravery--should be fired. These are some of the same politicians who had attacked Shinseki when he was Army chief of staff who warned that it would take hundreds of thousands of Americans, not thousands as the Bush-Cheney cabal had claimed, to successfully invade and control Iraq. For his military knowledge, he was forced into an early retirement. These are the politicians who are outraged that America is treating veterans poorly.

       Here’s what the politicians also won’t say. They won’t tell us that 41 Republican senators blocked legislation this past year to provide necessary funding for veterans health. They won’t tell us that during the first years of the Iraq War, the quality of American-based hospitals had deteriorated to the point that it took a major newspaper series to expose what had happened and, finally, with politicians forced to look at despicable conditions, and shamed by their ignorance, there were some measures to improve the care for wounded soldiers after their lives were saved by courageous battlefield medics.

      They won’t tell us that members of Congress blocked significant increases in the foodstamp program or that governors and legislatures have not done what they should to care for the homeless. After all, the impoverished and homeless don’t contribute to political campaigns. Of course, the politicians won’t tell us that one-fourth of all adult homeless are veterans.

      They won’t tell us about veterans who came home from war, and then lost their jobs or homes during the Great Recession that followed the fraud and greed committed by the bankers and industrial giants who were able to become rich because government did little to protect the people.

      With crocodile tears and shallow words, recorded by the news media, the politicians will tell us how much they mourn—but they won’t tell us they are part of the problem, for proudly claiming they voted time after time to block necessary funding and for demanding government not intrude upon the free enterprise system.

      The politicians will wave flags and say how much they believe in America and our veterans, and how much they mourn the loss of our soldiers. The crowds will enthusiastically agree—and then go to their barbeques and picnics.

      No, they won’t tell us that if we want to reduce these problem—DON’T THUMP YOUR CHESTS, UNFURL YOUR FEATHERS, AND SEND THE YOUTH TO WARS THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FOUGHT.

      During the Vietnam War, John Prine recorded “Your Flag Decal Won’t Get You Into Heaven Anymore.” It was true then. It is still true. Please listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRVNjsuycQ

--WALTER M. BRASCH

’Twas the Blight Before Christmas

by Walter Brasch

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, the Christmas season began the day after Thanksgiving.

            That was sufficient time to get into the spirit, view the lights, buy a nice tree and decorate it, watch for the 200th time “It’s a Good Life” or that movie about a kid who wants a BB gun for Christmas, and buy whatever was being advertised as “Christmas Specials.”

            And then the season, promoted by advertisers and businesses, elongated itself to Halloween.

Promises, Promises; OR, Why It's Legal to Lie to Voters

          

by Walter Brasch

            With less than a week before the election, Marshbaum has been campaigning furiously.

            "A chicken in every pot! Natural gas drilling will save the universe. Free health care for everyone!"

            "Marshbaum!" I commanded, "you can't make those kinds of promises."

            "You're right. I don't want to offend the health care industry. There's a lot of campaign money there. I'll just make up something else."

            "You just can't make up campaign promises."

            "Sure I can. It's easy. How about 'Vote for Marshbaum and win a date with Bette Midler?'"

            "You don't even know Bette Midler."

            "I like her movies," he said casually.

            "It has nothing to do with her movies," I said.

            "Think someone doesn't like her singing? I sure don't want to offend anyone. I could make it a date with Angelina Jolie. How about Brad Pitt for the women? Justin Bieber for teens?"

            "MARSHBAUM!" I screamed. "Get reasonable!"

            He thought a moment. "You're right. Angelina and Brad are probably out wasting their time doing some kind of charity work. How about 'Elect Marshbaum and you'll never pay taxes again!'"

            "That's ridiculous," I said. "No one will believe you."

            "Doesn't matter if they do or don't as long as they vote for me."

            "But you'd be lying to the people," I said.

            "Look at campaign posters," Marshbaum commanded. "They all say the same thing. You can just change the candidates' names and faces and no one will even notice."

            "People don't vote for someone based upon posters," I said.

            "You think voters actually read those newspaper articles or go to debates? It's all name recognition. You have more posters and ads than the next guy, and you win. You get three words on a poster. Try 'fair,' 'tough,' and 'experienced' Add a picture of the family for newspaper and TV ads, and mix it in with campaign promise not to raise taxes, and you have election assured."

            "There's probably some law that prevents politicians from lying."

            "Even for being a journalist, you're rather dense," said Marshbaum. "The FCC says it's OK to lie."

            "The Federal Communications Commission gives its approval?" I asked skeptically.

            "The FCC says that radio and TV stations can't refuse to run political ads even if the station management knows the ads are outright lies. Law says if a station takes even one ad from one candidate for federal office, it has to take all ads from all candidates for that office, even if the ad is highly offensive."

            "I'm sure when Congress wakes up they'll change this insane law." Marshbaum just laughed. "Most people don't believe most of what they see on TV anyhow," I sniffed.

            "Don't like the FCC and Congress? The Supreme Court said it was OK to lie," said Marshbaum.

            "The Supremes said lying to the people is acceptable?" I scoffed.

            "OK, not the U. ­­S­. Supreme Court, but A Supreme Court."

            "Which one? In Kabul?"

            "Albany. The New York Supreme Court."

            "Marshbaum, not even New York's court could be that incompetent."

            "Got it right here," he said, taking a wadded paper from his pocket. Case of O'Reilly v. Mitchell. Guy named O'Reilly sued a politician named Mitchell in 1912 and charged him with making promises that weren't kept."

            "A promise is a verbal contract," I said. "I'm sure you read it wrong. The Court undoubtedly upheld O'Reilly's claims."

            "Wrong, Newsprint Breath," said Marshbaum arrogantly. "Court said that politicians lie all the time, that promises in a campaign are just that. Promises. Verdict for the politician. Case closed."

            "But that occurred before World War I," I said. "Undoubtedly, some court overturned it."

            "It's precedent," Marshbaum said. "It's on the books. And the ruling was based upon the First Amendment rights of free expression. Just like the FCC ruling. How about 'Vote for Marshbaum and he'll wash all your dirty laundry?'"

            "Marshbaum," I said disgustedly, "there's already too much dirty laundry in the legislature and Congress."

            "Problem solved," said a smug Marshbaum, "when the voters see my plan to give everyone a free clothes washer and dryer, they'll overwhelmingly vote for me."

            "You can do whatever you want, but just remember that some politicians actually tell the truth."

            "Name one who did and got elected!" he demanded.

            "Honest Abe," I replied.

            (For the legal scholars out there, the case of O'Reilly v. Mitchell is cited as 85MISC176, 148NYS, 88 SUP, 1914. For those who aren't lawyers, reflect upon Hitler's belief that "the victor will never be asked if he told the truth." Walter Brasch's next book is Before the First Snow, available in pre-orders at amazon.com)