Tag Archives: Barack Obama

October 13, 2012 · 2:53 am

HE HAD TO TAKE THE FIRST PUNCH,By Louise Annarino, October 11,2012

HE HAD TO TAKE THE FIRST PUNCH, By Louise Annarino,October 11,2012

This is what DAGOS and WOPS are taught by their 1st. generation immigrant mothers: “Never start a fight. Take the first punch. After that fight back.” I cannot speak for African-American parents because I am white. But, I can speak to the innate racism of white people because I am white which means I am a recovering racist; and for white bigotry because I have experienced it as a 2d generation Italian immigrant, a woman, and a Roman Catholic. I know the anger I swallowed when seeing Nazi swastikas painted ten feet tall on the wall of my Catholic high school gymnasium, when being spit on for being a dirty fish-eater, when being ignored by store clerks who waited on everyone who came after me when I was in my school uniform, for being refused interviews for jobs unsuitable for a woman, for being paid less than male colleagues with less education and experience while  performing the same job, when being dismissed by police officers when reporting a rape. Such experiences do not simply slide off a person, even one who quietly takes punch after punch. They settle deeply in the sinew and bone, weigh heavy on the soul, and slow down our response to future acts of bigotry.

Those who routinely suffer bigotry but want to make a good life for themselves and their children do what all ambitious but good people do. They become educated, self-aware and well-mannered, They learn patience and an ability to address bigots with dignity, kindness and a sense of common humanity. Often, this creates an illusion that bigotry is acceptable, even expected. It is neither. Why, then acquiesce in the face of bigotry? Why remain silent? In the Jim Crow south, African Americans faced not only the institutionalized racism of realtors, bankers, and politicians; but, public shaming, physical violence, severe injury, and even death for not moving off a sidewalk to allow a white man to pass, for keeping one’s head up and looking a white man in the eye, for using a white-only drinking fountain, or merely for showing up at a poll to vote.

We have learned that racial bigotry and jim Crow is not just a southern thing, but persists throughout this country. It has become institutionalized within our political parties, rather forcefully within the Republican Party whose policies do not attract diverse membership, and which seems to have succumbed to Teapublican leadership. The Democratic Party’s diverse membership subdues the racial bigotry within; but we must admit it still taints every white American, despite out best efforts. This is why I call us white Americans recovering racists, resisting our innate bigotry one step at a time.

We watched president Obama take the first punch during the first debate. We watched him looking down as the white man aggressively put him in his place. We cannot know why he did not vigorously fight back. But I know that had he done so he would have been attacked far more bitterly than Vice-President Joe Biden has been attacked for his vigorous effort  to keep straight the record of the Obama-Biden administration’s policies. Biden is being derided for is behavior, He is called rude for being a happy warrior, for immediately refuting each lie as it was spoken, for laughing at the most ludicrous comments by Congressman Ryan.

Can you imagine what President Obama, whom the right-wing Republicans define as a socialist-fascist-communist,un-American devil, would have been called? I know what white men call strong, assertive African-American men with the audacity to look them in the eye and challenge them. We all do. An African-American man, too often, must take the first punch;especially, if he is seeking the votes of the  3% undecided white voters. We saw the injustice of lies directed against him for what it is, an attack on at least 47% of us.

Some of us became angry with the president for taking those punches;because, we could feel them in our own gut. But, could we have done better with a first punch? Anyone who really understands what bigotry lay behind the demeaning language and verbally intense attack,anyone who had personal experience with such attacks would have shut down an immediate response to develop a strategy to emerge unscathed. Obama did not give Romney a chance to  define his image. An angry Black thug would not appeal to that 3%.

Things have changed as a result. Americans have given our African-American president permission to fight back and to throw punches at the white candidate. It should not be necessary for him to get our permission. Racism creates ridiculous rules. He will, never the less, be attacked much more severely than Vice-President Biden has been today. However, now we white voters are ready to see such attacks for what they really are: just as unfair and dishonest as Romney’s policies and tactics for taking back the White House.

I cannot speak for the president, for what he felt, or what his response meant to him. But, I know what it meant to me. Time to fight, Mr. President. We have your back.

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 10, 2012 · 4:28 pm

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL,By Louise Annarino,October 10, 2012

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL, By Louise Annarino, October 10, 2012

Teachable moments are what I live for. At my core I am still Professor Annarino,even though I retired that nomenclature when I retired from Ohio University. The Arab Spring, and the role of President Obama and the United States of America as supporters of rising democratic republics across north Africa and the Mid-east have created a teachable moment. It was a sign of success when world leaders gathered at the United Nations and openly discussed the human right of freedom of expression. President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi of Yemen affirmed a belief in the right to freedom of expression, they expressed a need to limit hate speech, including speech that insults religion and religious figures. President Asif A. Zadari of Pakistan went further, arguing that such speech should be criminalized. These leaders are struggling with the ramifications of hate speech,as we all do. However, their recommended solution to restrict speech is not the only way to deal with hate speech. The United States has been dealing with this problem since its inception. Hate groups continue to plague us,sometimes engaging in homegrown terrorism.We understand  the issue. Our cultural institutions, med1a, schools and courts address the problems such hate speech create. These new leaders have hard choices ahead; difficult decades of discord before free speech takes hold.

To some calls  to limit speech may seem a disturbing turn of events. But it is not;it is chance to explore free speech more fully. Free speech protection has taken centuries to establish itself in Europe and America beginning with the fall of the “Sun-Kings” and “Holy Roman Emperors” of Europe. We continue the struggle to protect free speech today. The institution which held it back in Europe and The Americas,and continues to assault it today, is the institution whose nature is proscriptive due to its assigned task of “preaching the gospel”, the church. I would argue that one reason freedom of speech has become secured in American culture is the separation of Church and State. In America, no longer can a population be constricted from expressing beliefs contrary to what is preached from the pulpit on Sunday, the synagogue on Saturday, or the mosque on Friday. Witches are no longer being burned in Salem. Women can express themselves as they wish, without wearing Scarlet Letters. The separation of Church and State also stops the government from putting words into the mouths of those who preach, protecting all religions equally. We the People are the WALL which separates the two forces. Thus, it is inherent that we behave responsibly and fairly with one another to keep the wall strong.

Sometimes speech should be restricted. For example, to protect human life when speech threatens to kill. Verbal assault is a crime, if it places the recipient in fear of his life AND causes actual physical harm. But, we also believe “sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never harm us.” Nor are we free to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre; the outcome of panic in a confined space certain to injure or kill. We even allow reasonable restrictions on where speech can be voiced so as not to unreasonably interfere with the ordinary course of business. Nevertheless, reasonable accomodations must be made for the speech-giver.

The fact that the door is open to such discussion among world leaders is a good thing. Of course, these leaders face the same challenge early American leaders faced  taking on their ingrained cultural institutions, including their religious institutions, in order to implement and secure the unbridled right of freedom of expression. Their task is much harder than that of early American leaders, however. They do not have a thick wall separating church and state. Until they do, free speech for their people may be elusive. Imams preaching attacks on Christians, Jews and Infidels may cause fear in those groups since it may,and occasionally does, incite adherents to commit physical assaults. Also, a protester standing in Tahrir Square with a bullhorn shouting to attack the police,military or government may incite others to violence. In Somalia, opposition efforts to overthrow Siad Barre’s oppressive communist government declined to clan warfare, resulting in unspeakable violence and a Failed State. Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword. Dealing with these issues is always difficult;but when there is no separation of Church and State, resolving them is nigh impossible. When church leaders insist governments deny freedom of expression by anyone who does not follow their religious teachings, including poets,artists, cartoonists and authors both institutions are compromised;and, no one is free. Those who give up free speech soon lose personal freedom.

Is this the cultural difference to which new leaders ask us to be sensitive? Do they want our walls between church and state removed? Most certainly they do. We cannot agree to break down our wall between church and state. Doing so means we lose the protections ingrained in our Bill of Rights.We would no longer be a free people. We must refuse to do so; not for other nations, nor for Christian fundamentalists in our own country.

However, we can be sensitive to this issue for it is one we continually fight. We have our own version of groups who dislike the Wall and insist America is a Christian nation, when in fact it is a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens, and many non-Christians, and non-theists. The nation belongs equally to each person, and its laws are written for all, not simply for Christians. Some Christians constantly chip away at the Wall. They insist on prayer in public schools, tax-funded vouchers for religious schools, nativity sets on the public square, and faith-based “science” teaching.

We area free people with a Bill of Rights and separation of Church and State. We hold these rights sacred and believe they are human rights. We cannot, we must not abridge freedom of speech for any religion. Is this the real reason leaders of these countries justify violence against our embassies and citizens? Is it their Church or their State making such a demand upon us? Either way it is an impossible one. As Americans we define ourselves by our freedoms.

As we head into the final days of the 2012 election, consider which candidate has the sensitivity, experience, demeanor and resolute commitment to human rights, fairness, diversity and peaceful dispute resolution. Which one has the ability to pull together diverse supporters: Black-White-Latino-Native American, immigrant and DAR, Catholic-Jew-Muslim-atheist, artists-musician-scientist-environmentalist-Big Bird, Warren Buffet big businessmen-Elizabeth Lessner small businesswoman- unions, women, LGBT community, active military-veterans-Code pink-peace activists ? Which one is open to any idea so long as it is a good one, capable of solving a problem despite who brings it forward? Which embodies our American value of free speech by the diversity of his supporters? Which candidate can lead us forward in a diverse world, with new leaders, in new countries, seeking a new way to move forward? That candidate is President Barack Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 9, 2012 · 6:12 pm

OBAMA IS EASY TO FOLLOW:,By Louise Annarino, October 9,2012

OBAMA IS EASY TO FOLLOW, By Louise Annarino, October 9, 2012

 

Let’s talk about the safety nets Romney-Ryan (even Bill O’Reilly – http://voice4america.com/articles/2012/10/08/the-rumble-2012-bill-oreilly-vs-jon-stewart.html ) would shred. As a newly licensed attorney working at The Columbus Legal Aid Society during the Carter and Reagan Administrations, I represented those who had been wrongfully denied safety net benefits such as food stamps, Aid to Families With Dependent Children or AFDC, and General Relief. I understood the value of these programs. Having been terminated from my earlier job as a social worker at Marysville for  Women Maximum Security Prison and wrongfully denied Unemployment Benefits I relied on general relief and food stamps (I could eat), a compassionate landlady willing to defer rent (I did not become homeless) until my appeal had been heard, and a bank manager willing to refinance and defer my car payments ( I could continue my job search) for 3 months.

 

My former employer justified my termination and attempted to block my unemployment benefits because of the Black Studies programs I had implemented, and the trusting willingness of inmates to use me as an intermediary during their prison take-over. After a 3 month wait for a decision on my appeal regarding unemployment benefits, the appeal board found no wrongdoing on my part and granted full benefits. Until then, I had to rely on the social safety-net many of my fellow citizens rely on today.

 

Each month I stood on line with hundreds of other food stamp recipients to prove my income source, cost of rent/utilities/medical expenditures etc. The longer I was on public assistance the less money I received since I became poorer, and could pay fewer bills. I was no longer able to afford a doctor visit or fill my prescriptions for IBS, and had my phone disconnected. Consequently, I had fewer receipts to prove expenses. The amount of food stamps declined, but I still received $111 per month in General Relief benefits(this amount has barely risen in 30 years). These programs have been altered in scope, purpose. TANF (block grant program to help move recipients into work and turn welfare into a program of temporary assistance) program description by Franklin County Jobs and Family Services actually contains a statement “this is not an entitlement.”  As if the working poor feel entitled to ANYTHING.

 

I was very appreciative of the safety net. And,I was lucky. I was soon back on my feet with a job managing a Walden Book Store, while I continued looking for a job in my professional field, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Others who had been standing in line with me every month were not so lucky. They had children so could not afford to take a job paying less than their AFDC  and lose medicaid coverage for their kids.

 

Who were these persons? Women and children, the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly, those between jobs and ineligible for unemployment benefits or appealing benefit denials. They became my clients when I joined Legal Aid. It was difficult enough to help them when Carter was president; whenReagan was elected it nearly became impossible.Reagan defined those using the safety nets “Welfare Queens”. If such a majestic  figure lived among my clients I never saw hid nor hair of her. I saw poverty which made me weep:

-a 48 year old man who looked 90 after working in the mines since he was 16 years old, fighting for Black Lung Benefits. His one room shack on Columbus’ south side lacked insulation and drywall; winter wind pushed through every crack, robbing the makeshift coal-fired iron stove he used for cooking and heating of any warmth. He slept on an uncovered box spring, without a mattress, sheets or a pillow. His only furniture, a small square table and a single hard chair, greyed with use. He insisted I sit on the chair while he stood during our interview, and I drank the coffee he brewed just for me from his single tin cup. By the end of that day, my colleagues and I had brought in a spare mattress, sheets,blankets, a pillow, plates and cups. When I won the appeal for food stamps and  Black Lung benefits he brought a gift he had made for me to my office, a blue teddy bear stuffed with dried grass. He was a noble man, not a welfare queen.

 

-a 97 year old woman whose earliest memory was of her legs dangling as she sat at the back edge of the wagon carrying her family west to Nebraska Territory. When I won her food stamps appeal, she invited me to share the first baked potato she had been able to buy in years. She was overjoyed at her stocked pantry and asked me to celebrate with her. She was a noble woman, not a welfare queen.

 

-a 76 year old recent widow facing eviction after the bank foreclosed on her home by summary judgement. Her husband had handled all finances. They lived on their social security,reduced by his death. When a bank sent her a credit card in the mail,she misunderstood and thought it was somehow related to her husband’s insurance pay-out. She used it to but gifts for her grandchildren, which she had never before been able to afford doing; and gifts for the nursing staff and others who had helped he through her husband’s illness. Within the first month she had used the entire limit stated and stopped using the card. Then the bills came. Then the demand letters, Then the foreclosure notice. Then the lawsuit. Then the eviction notice. She told no one, ashamed of her naivety and ignorance of financial matters. A  visiting neighbor caught her crying one day and called me. I filed an appeal and the bank settled  the appeal by agreeing they would not act upon their lien on her un-mortgaged property until her death. She could remain in her home until she died. She was a noble woman, not a welfare queen.

 

Then, President Reagan ordered the Social Security Administration to remove every disability recipient from the roles and require them to reapply and prove they were still entitled to benefits. He was certain that welfare fraud, and especially disability fraud, were rampant even though studies showed that the welfare fraud rate was a mere 1/4 of 1%. The Savings and Loan fraud was much more of a problem and caused huge economic losses across the country. Today, as then,Wall Street’s and the banking and mortgage systems’ fraud rate is much higher than any problems caused by safety net recipients; and, with much more severe consequences to the entire world, as we recently discovered. Deregulation of these industries opened up highways for fraud among the investors and their banks, investment houses, and mortgage companies. The impact of President Reagan’s off-the-roles disability order?

-a 37 year old blind from complications of untreated diabetes with severe heart abnormalities was removed from disability, became homeless, lost food stamps because he had no permanent address, lost medicare coverage, could not buy insulin or needles, and died from diabetic coma and heart attack. My appeals for food stamps, temporary emergency housing, and restoration of disability benefits were granted in his favor 2 weeks after his death.

 

When I listen to Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Riley state how compassionate they are, how those who DESERVE help should get it but through private enterprise not with your hard-earned tax dollars, how BIG GOVERNMENT is creating and increasing the deficit; BUT, THEY WILL NOT RAISE TAXES on the top 2% whose rate are the lowest in 30 years, how they will budget MORE money to buy military equipment but not vote to make the veteran’s safety net stronger and call it strengthening the military I want to join Jon Stewart and say  these people live on “BULL SHIT MOUNTAIN”  where welfare queens threaten their very existence. Human beings of great dignity are using the safety nets, and they deserve government support to put food in their mouths and a roof over their heads as much as those living on  Bullshit Mountain deserve tax breaks and government support to accumulate and build their wealth.

 

President Obama, those who live on “bullshit Mountain” say, stole $716 from medicare to pay for Obamacare. What they don’t say is Obama did not cut  $716 billion from medicare but saved it through reduced provider reimbursements and by curbing waste, fraud and abuse. Both Romney and Ryan agree their administration will allocate the exact same amount, $716 million from “medicare cuts” to reduce the deficit, as was done in the Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored. While Romney-Ryan bemoan Big Government fraud, President Obama has been busy eliminating it.

 

How did President Obama budget that savings? He used it to pay for Obamacare. He closed the ”donut hole” created by Republican’s unfunded Medicare Part D. Medicare now provides, free or without co-pay for preventive care and tests for:

-annual wellness visit

-tobacco use cessation counseling

-screenings for bone mass measurement,cervical cancer, pap smear and cervical exam,cholesterol and other cardiovascular screenings, colorectal screenings, diabetes, HIV, prostrate cancer

-mammograms

-flu shot,pneumonia shot,and hepatitis B shot

-medical nutrition therapy to manage diabetes or kidney disease

Full details can be reviewed at http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/65-older/medicare-preventive-services/index.html

 

President Obama is not stealing from medicare since the funds remain within the budget to increase,improve,streamline and lower cost of services to the government and for recipients. It is Romney-Ryan budget which does steal this amount from medicare to pay down the deficit, so they can justify not fairly increasing taxes on the top 2%. They insist only by cutting the safety net can they reduce the deficit. President

Obama has shown us a better way! Yet, Republicans, led by Ryan-Boehner-Mitchell et al continue a disinformation campaign of massive proportions and block every effort by President Obama to improve our economy, create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure,reduce the deficit, and keep a new and improved safety-net in place. What is truly amazing is how well our president is doing despite these obstructionists.

As my friend Carol Mason wrote me this morning: “Have you read Doris Kearns-Goodwin’s book ‘No Ordinary Time’“? It is the story of FDR’s presidencies during those “unordinary times.” President Obama is, I learned, a student of FDR’s terms of office. And this “unordinary” time Obama inherited may be why he sought insight from FDR’s years and experience.

 

“…the notion that an intelligent, ethically minded leader of goodwill, planning strategically, moving within a BIG picture, hoping to solve BIG problems, would not be easy to “follow.” It’s a complicated, interconnected mess of circumstances one must navigate, to lead a country the size and scope of America. Goodwin revealed a level and almost unfathomable scope of information FDR worked with that virtually no other human being had the collective knowledge of. And it was from this unique perspective that he master-minded a strategy and led the tactical charge for pulling America out of the Depression and on the winning side of the Second World War.

 

“I trust in President Obama’s intelligence, his integrity and his desire to make change for the good. And I have seen over time, how his modest behavior, though not flashy enough for some, has–behind the scenes–gotten a lot of things done.” Carol and I agree that Obama is easy to  follow after all!

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 8, 2012 · 1:50 pm

WE NEED LAWYERS TO MODERATE DEBATES,By Louise Annarino, October 8,2012

WE NEED LAWYERS TO MODERATE DEBATES, By Louise Annarino,October 8,2012

 

Yesterday, I discussed the need to identify and challenge bullying behavior in the workplace,at school, and on debate stages. While it may be impossible for human beings to refrain from aggression and dominance, such behavior can be restrained and redirected in positive ways. This is called the process of civilization. While some Americans made treaties and sought peaceful sharing of mother earth with Native Americans as they moved across new frontiers and ancient tribal grounds, others on both sides bullied their way, breaking treaties and attacking each other. When rules are allowed to be easily broken, when little is done to enforce them, when rule-breakers win without censure, nations and civilizations are destroyed.

 

The core restraints against bullies are rules. Rules must be established and enforced to restrain aggression and dominance. Every mother knows this. Every mother tames her children with rules, redirects their innate desire to dominate their world with rules. As a child matures into civility, she hopes empathy will take over her role as matron of rules. A mother can relax a bit once her child has learned good manners; but only if the child also has developed empathy. Some are incapable of empathy; some so privileged they do not believe rules apply to them. These persons must be compelled to follow rules even more closely in order not to abuse their innate drive to dominate and overpower others. Such persons abuse such power if their aggression is not contained within the rules, nor redirected by their own empathy.

 

When I was 18 I developed and directed a playground in small town inner-city neighborhood. The neighborhood’s poverty level was similar to my own. While it was predominately African-American, my own was predominately new immigrant. Neither viewed positively by the larger populace of the town. Each difficult to escape. Immigrants could eventually escape with education and very hard work; African-Americans could not escape even with education and very hard work due to red-lining real-estate transactions and discrimination. Each neighborhood had their share of bullies, as I am certain the wealthier white neighborhoods did as well. They must have because I met those bullies in college, in law school, and in the workplace.

 

It was easy to identify the bullies by their easy but tight smiles, chest-leading swagger and rapid fire delivery of directives and demands. When I questioned them they lied for the joy of misleading me. When I challenged them, they accelerated their verbal barrage against me, for the joy of dominating the conversation. When I held them to the rules, they became louder and more animated, for the joy of undermining my authority. And, they never stopped smiling those tight smiles. To diminish my personal or positional power, they demeaned me in front of others, passed false rumors regarding my character, and claimed my accomplishments as their own. I know bullies intimately.

 

To keep the other children and myself safe from the bullies, the neighborhood gang stayed nearby and moved in when the bullies became too aggressive. I did two things to address this situation. First, I organized a neighborhood election (parents and neighbors could also vote) for a Playground Congress to make rules, which selected a Playground Supreme Court to decide when rules had been broken and ordered punishment for rule-breakers, which selected a Playground Chief of Police to enforce the rules and punishment, and who selected his Playground Police Patrol. Congress made rules such as no knives, no guns, no matches, no drugs, no fighting, no cursing, no stealing. The Supreme Court selected the lead bully as Chief of Police. The Chief of police picked his adherents as police officers. The bully was now commissioned to abide by and enforce the rules, with assurance the Court would mete out justice. The aggression and need to  dominate of our bully was contained within rules and his energies redirected. He was incapable of empathy, but we had a means of civilizing his need to dominate and control others.

 

Fights were handled following my suggestion. Those whose arguments became either verbally or physically violent were sentenced to “the ring”. While I laced up miscreants’ boxing gloves, the leader of our local gang who agreed to manage the fight (who better able?) read the Queensbury Rules to the combatants. It was his job to keep the fight within the rules and assure no blows caused harm to either combatant. To say this was a novel approach for him is a gross understatement. However, he handled his role with the strong leadership qualities he displayed as a well-respected gang leader. He, like all good leaders, was not a bully. He was calm, reserved, soft-spoken, and saved his smiles for those surprising moments of utter hilarity which frequently erupt in the presence of young children. Watching these kids try to connect a punch wearing boxing gloves they could barely hold up created such fun that their arguments and need to fight quickly dissipated, while we all laughed together.

 

Looking back, I think I became a lawyer not because I like rules, but because I hate them. I hate the need for them. But I respect what rules,what the RULE OF LAW, can accomplish. It can civilize a nation. It can contain a bully. This is what The 10 Commandments are for Jews, their early rule of law. When Jesus was asked, “Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment?” He answered that there is but ONE commandment, “That you love one another, even as God loves you.” This requires empathy. When empathy fails, when one person just doesn’t “get” the other, only rules can replace empathy and create civility. Maybe we need lawyers to moderate debates.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 8, 2012 · 3:17 am

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ROUND TWO;By Louise Annarino,October 7, 2012

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ROUND TWO, By Louise Annarino, October, 7, 2012

 

If you think my last piece which suggested we do not need a bully in the bully-pulpit was mere spin on the lack of an effective response to Mr. Romney’s debate performance by President Obama and Jim Lehrer, rest assured it was not meant to be so. The willingness within human culture to overlook and even applaud bullying is more prevalent than we recognize. In schools, workplaces, even on debate stages it too often rears its ugly head. Tim Field, [bullyonline.org] who believes only the best are bullied, describes bullying in a way we cannot so easily overlook:
“Bullying is a compulsive need to displace aggression and is achieved by the expression of inadequacy (social, personal, interpersonal, behavioural, professional) by projection of that inadequacy onto others through control and subjugation (criticism, exclusion, isolation etc). Bullying is sustained by abdication of responsibility (denial, counter-accusation, pretence of victimhood) and perpetuated by a climate of fear, ignorance, indifference, silence, denial, disbelief, deception, evasion of accountability, tolerance and reward (eg promotion) for the bully.”

Tonight, while I sat in the atrium of the pizza parlor waiting to pick up a pizza, I noticed several middle school girls, accompanied by a few parents, enjoying a birthday party in the adjacent party room. The birthday girl stepped through the open double-pocket doors into the lobby area as the party seemed to wind down, only to have the other girls close the doors behind her and refuse to allow her back inside. The other girls laughed and teased her as she quietly asked them to open the doors. They would not budge; but only grinned and giggled. Her efforts to dislodge one door moved every girl to hold it fast against her. As she shifted to the other side, they shifted against her,relishing their power over her. As the intensity of her pleas increased in anxiety but not volume, their glee increased. The parents paid them no mind,as the jollity of the girls on the inside increased, and the girl shoved to the outside became more resigned to her powerlessness. As the fight went out of the girl being kept outside the group and the reliance on the kindness of girlfriends was lost in the darkness, the game became meaningless and was abandoned. The birthday girls’s wounded eyes belied her “thanks for coming” to the parting girls, still laughing over their prank.

 

How often do we see this type of interaction and not recognize what it is and the damage it does?  When the suggestion of a faculty member at a university committee meeting is ignored by the group, only to be applauded 3 minutes later when a member of the faculty in-group suggests the very same idea, do we recognize bullying? In those moments the pretense of collegiality was forever lost. On the day of the John F. Kennedy assassination as a unformed Catholic school girl quietly bears the shouts of public school students as she walks home following early dismissal, “Ha ha! Someone finally killed your fish-eating president, you dirty Catholic!”,do we recognize bullying? In those moments safe passage on a city street was forever lost. Would we recognize it in what Mitt Romney did as a high school senior when he organized an assault on a fellow student stating, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” and proceeded to cut his hair as Romney’s friends held him down? In those moments his pretense of innocent prankster was forever lost.

 

There is a fine line between strong leadership and bullying; the two can be easily and unfairly confused. I do not believe I have done so in this case. There is a mistaken belief that bullies pick on the weak. But, often they pick on those whose greater strength threatens their perceived dominance and control, whose greater strength they fear. I believe this is what drove Mitt Romney’s hyper-verbal aggression, unwarranted rule-breaking, and laughter-filled domination at the first presidential debate. He was too comfortable making others uncomfortable, too gleeful when breaking rules, too eager to distort-deny-ignore his own policies, too satisfied with his own evasions. To me, these are traits of a bully; not a leader one can trust. To me Romney’s fearful excitement, fueled by aggression, was far more significant than whether he won or President Obama lost the debate.

 

I also believe these traits are what drives the unwarranted attacks against Barack Obama by Mr. Romney and Teapublicans who fear the changing demographics seemingly embodied in an African-American president. I am not the first to remark upon this phenomenon. But, do we recognize the behavior we are watching as  bullying? Perhaps we do not do so because our president is so strong. Perhaps we don’t because we fear by doing so he will be called weak. We cannot afford to ignore the bullying, because the world cannot afford a bully in the bully pulpit. Bullies often attack those whose strength they fear. There is no way to appease bullies;their fear is a bottomless pit. However, kind people instinctively try to protect the weak. Strong people instinctively hold back their strength to avoid worsening the bully’s fear. But, we need not deny our strength to make weak bullies feel better about themselves. That is their responsibility. The first step in confronting a bully is to define him as one.

 

President Obama must admit he faces a bully, and do what each of us who have faced bullies have learned to do – stand up to the bully and challenge his displaced aggression ,projection of inadequacy, subjugation,criticism, counter-accusation, abdication of responsibility, pretense of victimhood, denial, deception, evasion of accountability; perpetuated by a climate of fear and ignorance while insisting on approval. Bullies cannot be rewarded with a pretense that they are fair or strong leaders. When they are not attacking the strong, they are attacking the weak. And who will speak for the weak? The strong must be willing to do so. President Obama must speak for all of us: women, immigrants,people of color, LGBT community, middle class, poor, small businesses, corporations facing take-over, even mother earth. This is why President Obama’s supporters were disappointed in his performance;not because he lost a debate, but because he did not defend them against the bully.

 

I said it before, and I shall say it again, “Bullies must never be called winners.” We cannot allow a bully to be elected to the bully-pulpit. Anger at President Obama is misguided by our own fear of ,and distaste for, Mr. Romney. It is time to stand together;not let fear divide us. Mr. President, we are counting on you to lead us. every day, we face down these bullies during canvassing, phone banks, fundraising, writing Letters to the Editor, and blogging. We have your back. We know we can count  on you to have ours.  Bullies beware!

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 5, 2012 · 3:04 pm

NO PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BULLIES IN THE BULLY PULPIT,By Louise Annarino,October 4, 2012

NO PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BULLIES IN THE BULLY PULPIT,By Louise Annarino, October 4, 2012

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary tells us that the word debate was originated in the 13th century. It is a Middle English word, taken from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, and from Latin battuere. Its first known use is in the 14th century

Today it defined as: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides. Its obsolete definition is : fight, contend.

 

Understanding the definition explains why the first Presidential debate had no winners,especially not the American people for whom this battle or debate of ideas was being waged across our screens. Many would blame moderator Jim Lehrer; but, that would be blaming the victim, as is so common in human nature, for the bully-behavior of one of the contenders, Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney brazenly and brutally shouted down the moderator and set his own rules,altering them to suit his attack. His rapid-fire delivery of disconnected thought bursts made it near impossible for a reasonable person to interject control over the proceedings. From his first comments the debate was removed from the moderator’s control to  Romney’s. From that moment on Romney  was free to lie, and he did so repeatedly.

 

I have written so often about his lies I won’t take time to repeat them today. There are many other sources fact-checking and reporting on them, if you will take time to read or listen. Before this first debate I described what to expect, a Romney shell game meant to sell Americans a bill of goods,and intimidation of the moderator. When President Obama calmly but decidedly pointed out Mr. Romney’s game, Romney called the president a liar. I predicted this strategy in my earlier blog. We all have experienced liars in our lives. We all have been warned by our mothers to tell the truth, that if you lie once you will have to continually lie to cover up the first lie, that after the first lie lying gets easier, that once you are known as a liar, no one will ever believe you. Nevertheless,this is the Republican strategy: Call our president a liar. Lie about your own unpopular and destructive policies, then call anyone who points out your lies a liar to confuse people and reinforce your own lies as truth. It is a brilliant one for those who don’t pay close attention to politics, or only watched the debate, or only watch FOX news.

 

Early in the debate, Mr. Romney called President Obama a liar to his face and obliquely referenced him as “boy” by using his own sons’ lies as a reference point for President Obama’s challenge to Mr. Romney’s lie. He said this with a smile on his face, speeding up his commentary and chuckling at his own wit. President Obama had to be disgusted. I know I was. The moderator remained silent. After this point, there was no debate happening. This was no longer a formal statement of position, with rules governing the manner in which each side argued for their position. Mr. Romney stated the president’s positions as his own, and when challenged called the president a liar. I cannot call what I watched a debate. It was the obsolete definition of a debate. It was battuerre or debatre. It was a fight.

 

Our president is a gentleman, a statesman, a leader who does not fight with his fists, nor fist-fight with his words. He does not lie to make a point;nor make a point to lie. He does not bully. He would never cheat and call it a victory, as Mr. Romeny’s own son tells us about his Dad with great pride as a reason to elect him president: Craig Romney: My Dad Cheats & “That’s What We Need in the White House.” Once a cheater,always a cheater, on income taxes, in debates, on the campaign trail [just review statements of other Republican candidates during the primary campaign],even in the White House.

 

Don’t mistake my words. President Obama knows how to fight. Both Mr. Lehrer and the president are the victims of a bully. For the beating they took we must blame the bully, not the victims. However, I do fault them and those who managed them for not anticipating they had a bully who would not play by the rules, who disdains rules, who is so privileged he believes rules should not apply to him and should apply only to lesser beings, certainly to the 47%. Did they not know who Romney is? Have they not been watching him campaign? Have they not seen his ad campaign? Do they think they are immune to bullying? They walked right into the trap. For that, I do blame them. But, that, does not make Romney a winner; just a lying, cheating bully not worthy of the presidency.

 

Romney can say whatever he wants, change positions all he wants. None of that matters. We know what the Ryan-Romney Budget [not a typo;Ryan will control the budget effort] will do to our economy, our middle class, our poor, women, children, seniors, immigrants, minorities, LGBT community, the arts and Big Bird. It is who he is and how he behaves which will betray our finest American ideals and our leadership throughout the world. No one can be safe with a bully running the neighborhood. Wake up America. GO VOTE for every democratic candidate on your ballots. The lying, cheating bullies must be defeated. In America we battere / debatre / fight withBALLOTS.

 

Republicans know this which is why voter suppression and intimidation is one tactic in their strategy to take back government. Bullies don’t know how to compromise; it is always their way or the highway. They have only one measure of success: how badly did they batter the other guy? Democrats are not bullies. This does not make us weak; it makes us brave, smart, and compassionate listeners and doers. Don’t judge President Obama or Mr. Lehrer by how they looked while being bullied.I’ve been bullied and it is not a pretty sight. Judge them by what they do for America, by how they behave toward others, by the dignity and compassion they show others, by the wisdom to know when to put up their fists and when to let the bully hang by his own rope. President Obama now knows Mitt Romney. He has felt his flying verbal fists in his gut. He will defeat Mr. Romney. Mr. Romney will never know what hit him.

 

VOTE OBAMA AND DOWN-TICKET DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ,INCLUDING JUDGES. VOTE TODAY.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2012 · 6:16 pm

DEBATING THE OPTICS,By Louise Annarino, October 1, 2012

DEBATING THE OPTICS, By Louise Annarino, October 1, 2012

 

Even Howard Dean is falling for Republican talking points today advising us to mute our televisions and simply watch the debate without sound. Newscasters on every cable and broadcast network are discussing the upcoming debates as if all the audience is capable of is watching body language,especially in camera shots of one candidate’s reaction to what the other is saying. The only value given to what is being said,rather than to how the candidates look saying it, is the search for zingers. I do realize optics matter; but, they do not matter more than the substance of what is being said. Such discussions as I have been hearing are disrespectful to the American public. We are not children. We are not fools. We understand the spoken word. We can think and we can analyze. We want and need to listen the details of where and how each man intends to lead our country. Romney consistently refuses, and so, does not want us to listen to President Obama tell us this. Distracting viewers from listening means Romney need say nothing; and what President Obama says goes unheard.

 

Certainly, newscasters and pundits do not intend to insult us. They need us to continue watching them. But,it is just so easy for newscasters to fall into the Republican trap. They understand optics because looking good means a wider profile and bigger bucks when delivering television news. It’s radio for the less lovely.  Howard Dean may have fallen into the trap because he recalls how the “Dean Scream” became a deflating debate zinger in his own run for the presidency. Republicans know they have messengers ready to fall into the trap. It is a brilliant strategy.

 

The Republican strategy is also brilliant,however, for more sinister reasons. If the debate can be reduced to optics only, Romney can appear on stage as President Obama’s equal. Both can appear equally presidential,even when only one sounds that way. Even worse, the white guy in the business suit almost always trumps the Black guy in the business suit. Although, with changing demographics, Romney may alter his tanning times to appeal to a broader audience, as he has done in the past. How better to attack an African-American president than to make the debate all about optics. This further broadens the appeal of Romney to subliminally racist viewers,without any use of coded language. The racial coding is within the image itself.

 

If we devalue what is said by the candidates,and focus only on how it is said we allow ourselves to be set up  for another Republicantactic Obama is a liar who uses his gifted rhetoric to lie to the American people. If no one is listening to his responses to the moderator’s questions, it is much easier to attack him in this manner. If we fall for an optics only debate,we fail our responsibility to be a fully informed voter.

 

Understanding the optics does give us additional information about each candidate. However, using optics as the central and most significant analytical tool while watching the debate is simplistic and makes us susceptible to propaganda. Listening to news analysis of the debate only from an optics viewpoint demeans American viewers. We deserve better. We have a right to be angry with those who are suggesting we set aside all of our senses to use only the one they can most easily manipulate.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2012 · 1:45 pm

A DEBATE OR A SHELL GAME? WHOM DOES ROMNEY THINK HE IS KIDDING?,By Louise Annarino, October 1, 2012

A DEBATE OR SHELL GAME? WHOM DOES ROMNEY THINK HE’S KIDDING? By Louise Annarino, October 1, 2012

 

My first debate was in my Catholic high school in 1967. The single question to be answered: “Should tax dollars be used to support private education?” My position; “No! It was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state, and would weaken both institutions. I was unpopular; but,as we can see,I was right. I doubt the journalists who question President Obama and Mr. Romney on Wednesday night,October 3d.( http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/ )will have an opportunity to reach the depth of discussion we did in that high school debate. The format does not allow for in-depth responses with so many questions to be answered.

 

Also, Mr. Romney has already stated he will be fact-checking the president. This is a back-handed way of saying he will be calling the president a liar, for any response he makes. This is a brilliant offensive tool meant to put the president on the defensive for factual statements he really need not defend. His record is clear. It is Mr. Romney’s record which is disturbingly murky. He hides behind past accomplishments;for example, taking credit for an auto bail-out he opposed when he argued that if the automakers “get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”

 

He still has not released his financial records so we can understand just what his true business dealings are. He follows Niccolo`Machiavelli’s premise- “There is nothing more important than appearing to be religious.”- by using charitable donations to his church as his excuse for withholding his tax returns and supporting financial documents, which would answer our legitimate concerns that his business dealings are self-serving and bad for American workers. While one applauds charitable giving,most Americans would prefer he not out-source their jobs, keep his sizeable wealth in American banks to use as loans for further small business development, and pay his fair share of taxes.

 

He continually changes his positions, not because changing circumstances call for more nuanced responses; but, because his audience changes. He has been known to argue for alternative policies on the same day to two different groups (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/mitt-romney-small-business-owners-_n_1917556.html )for example, while campaigning in Ohio. “The first message, delivered early in the day in Westerville, was that small business owners should ‘not be expecting a huge cut in taxes.’ The second message, delivered later in Shaker Heights, was that ‘small business is crushed by taxes,’ and that Romney plans to bring ‘tax rates down for small business’.” Who knows what he will say during a debate;his focus will be on “fact-checking” his opponent rather than telling us his true position. There used to be a term for this behavior: the pot calling the kettle black.

 

A debate where one party’s focus is on fact-checking to cover up his own lack of consistent and verifiable positions? Where one party takes on the role of debate monitor rather than engage in the debate itself? Where one party asserts dominance and control by bullying the other debater? This is nothing more than Romney’s effort to continue the shell-game he has been playing since he entered the political fray. Actually, this may be why we cannot see his tax returns. Perhaps his business and charitable occupations have always been simply a massive shell game. Perhaps Mr. Romney himself is a shell of a candidate, not a real contender for the presidency of the United States.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 30, 2012 · 2:26 pm

FOUR MORE YEARS FOR OBAMA;By Louise Annarino,September 30, 2012

FOUR MORE YEARS FOR OBAMA; By Louise Annarino, September 30, 2012

 

My uncles could teach political operatives a thing or two. They were my campaign managers when I ran for student council during my freshman year of high school. Uncle Joe advised me to talk with and listen to everyone, ask them what they wanted done at the school and explain how I would work toward their goals, hand out some token gift with my name on it, and act certain of my success. Apparently, people vote for persons who make them feel appreciated, important, and secure. My Uncle Johnny advised me to not do it all myself; but, to get other people involved in my campaign. Let someone else buy what I needed, pass out the token gifts, and make signs for me. Uncle Frankie asked me why I wanted to make more work for myself;but if I did want the position,I should promise to work harder and be better than any other candidate. Dad told me to listen to my uncles; but, not be disappointed if I did not win. They each agreed all politicians are crooks,and I needed to stay a “good Catholic girl”, which would be difficult if I became a politician. This entire political education forum lasted about 15 minutes as I sat on a bar stool watching them prepare for the lunch crowd soon to arrive at the restaurant they owned and ran together. I won that seat in student council. The position was next to meaningless,I soon learned. Governance depended upon reaching compromises and acting within the dictates of the principal and the nuns;not exactly a chance to change the entire structure of Catholic education in Newark,Ohio.

 

The campaign was all exciting possibility; the governance afterwards was all harsh reality. It takes a special person to run for re-election. A person running for re-election knows the grueling demands of the campaign trail, and the grueling demands of governance; yet, is willing to face the simultaneous demands of both. Good health stamina is the one of the most important qualities in a leader. A person running for re-election must answer for past governance decisions,is challenged on performance outcomes,and is chastised for not being exciting enough the second go-round.

 

Have you ever been to a marriage renewal ceremony for a couple married 25 years? It is a much more relaxed and unexciting affair than the original wedding. The wonder is that there is any excitement left at all in the marriage! This is what re-election campaigns feel like. No one is overjoyed; but,no one can deny the sheer joy of still being together facing the campaign’s demands, and no one would choose a different partner. It just feels right. We know the next 4 years, or 25 years, will require the same skills which called us all together in the beginning: the ability to listen and hear one another, the ability to work toward common goals, faithfully give something of ourselves to one another, and maintaining hope in a better future. The marriage renewal ceremony is similar to re-election because we are all less naive and more scarred by experience.However, we are even more dedicated to making the marriage, or governance of the country, work for the good of all. Our hope and faith is not diminished;it is stronger than ever! “Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!” There is no better partner for America than President Barack Obama.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 22, 2012 · 1:45 am

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE: REPUBLICANS ON THE MOVE,By Louise Annarino, September 21, 2012

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE:REPUBLICANS ON THE MOVE, By Louise Annarino,September 21, 2012

Can Democratic candidates win control of the the House of Representatives? Will they retain control of the Senate? Republicans controlled redistricting in most key states, including here in Ohio, following the 2010 census. As a result, it has been commonly accepted that RepublicanHouse candidates have their races sewn up. If this is so, why are they running so fast to jump off Romney’s coat tails?

And do they think voters have forgotten it is House and Senate Republicans who have blocked the efforts of Democrats and President Obama to achieve economic recovery, job retention and creation, break-up of banks too big to fail, oversight of Wall Street, broader energy program, slow-down of climate change, more expansive coverage and lower costs for health care, extension of social security and medicare solvency, women’s rights, LGBT rights, veterans’ care and benefits? Their obstructionism justified simply because they preferred a 1 term presidency over the good of the country and ALL of its citizens?

Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann who are well-known for their independence and non-partisanship put it this way: “In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted.  Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.  The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics.  It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

They may run as far from Mitt Romney, and their House colleague and putative leader Paul Ryan; but, they can’t hide form the facts:

  • Due to GOP insistence on holding budget bill hostage to defunding Planned Parenthood and health reform it brought the US Government to the brink of shutdown in 2011.
  • Due to GOP insistence on defeating President Obama’s stimulus,it refused to raise the debt limit until a few hours before default. S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history explaining, “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”
  • Due to GOP standoff as a budget extension expired 4,000 FAA employees were furloughed in a partial shut-down lasting 13 days,cost the government $200 million in weekly ticket tax revenue that airlines no longer had the authority to collect,and stopped work on dozens of airport projects around the country,
  • Due to GOP demanding Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Program,which would cut 10,000 jobs it delayed emergency disaster relief.
  • Due to GOP refusal to accept Obama’s routine  proposal to extend the payroll tax cut for middle class families,leaving town as the payroll taxes were about to go up,refusing  to pass the Senate bill until Rep. John Boehner acceded to public criticism and maneuvered the votes needed to pass the bill at the last possible moment.
  • Due to GOP need defeat Obama in 2012 it continues to block the president’s American Jobs Act costing firefighters,police officers and teachers more than 1 million jobs.
  • Due to GOP need to ruin President Obama’s support by small business owners, it continues to block tax cuts for small businesses included in Pbama’s American Jobs Act.
  • Due to GOP desire to show Obama as incompetent, it continues to block essential infrastructure projects included in Obama’s American Jobs Act.
  • Due to GOP effort to pass ideological/morality-laden bills, it has delayed for months any action on the Senate’s version of the Transportation Bill, holding up Obama’s efforts to rebuild roads,bridges,rail lines,seaports,rail and truck depots essential to rebuilding the economy and increasing deportation of American-mad goods which improve our trade balance.
  • Due to GOP plan to remove student support for Obama it delayed reduction in student loan rates, and repeatedly blocked Obama efforts to remove private sector profit from student loan program. The changes Obama was able to accomplish should have been agreed to long ago.
  • Due to GOP plan to deny Obama the support of women voters and impose ideological strictures on women it delayed and blocked extension of contraceptive health care benefits for women, repeatedly refused to renew the Violence Against Women Act, opposed the Lily Ledbetter law, and denied Sandra Fluke’s first attempt to testify before a Congressional committee.
  • Due to GOP need to protect its wealthy donors in order to finance Obama’s defeat, it continues to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage unless tax cuts for the top 1% are maintained, and even increased.
  • Due to GOP disdain for science it has blocked Obama’s efforts to address the effects of climate change, insists on major cuts for pure scientific research,and plans to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

GOP House and Senate candidates can run from Romney-Ryan ticket, but they cannot run from its recent history, nor from the Republican Party Platform, which would continue to hold economic recovery hostage to impose GOP ideology and protect its wealthy donors. How important are these donors? By most accounts Romney spends more time with them than he does on the campaign trail. As ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports: “At one recent Texas fundraiser, a donor told Romney, ‘I am happy to write a check, but why are you here? Shouldn’t you be in Ohio?'”

We have a choice in this election: Vote for Democrats who will support President Obama’s plans for economic recovery, job creation, energy independence, environmental and health protection,end of war in Afghanistan, avoidance of future unjustified wars, meeting the needs of veterans, aiding our military families, following a just foreign policy, and exerting every effort on behalf of all of us; or, vote for Republicans who will continue to block everything which would move us all forward unless we allow them to strip away our civil rights, reward the 1% with more tax breaks, increase middle-class taxes, demean and dismiss the working poor, ignore the indigent, forget our military and veterans, cripple our cities, and use foreign policy to make money for corporate war-mongers. Republicans should keep on running,and not let the door hit them on the back on their way out.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,