Friday, December 18, 2015
That moment when you are finally forced to buy a mediocre insurance policy because the fines for non-compliance with Obamacare are too steep and your country refuses to build a sensible health care system like other countries have;
and you learn that what the broker told you over the phone isn't true; and by the way your first payment was due upon signup but they told you something different before and you're lucky to be finding out now;
and you are directed to the company's website to make your payment but the website doesn't work, so you call tech support;
and tech support sends you to a call center in Illinois which talks to you for 20 minutes before saying, "Wait, you're New Mexico? You're in the wrong place" and you're thinking "Wrong country, actually;"
and several hold times and confused employees later you are with minimal difficulty able to hand over the money that you can't quite afford but have to because the government is forcing you to buy private health insurance and bragging about what a wonderful thing that is;
and you are ready to say "Cancel the insurance and just shoot me, or send me to one of your wars and let somebody else do it and then you can blame it on terrorism."
Yeah, that moment.
Monday, December 07, 2015
Another mangled "Desert Sage" column. Both in print and online, the Sun News lopped off the last 60 words of the column, leaving it to end abruptly and with no conclusion. So here, for what it's worth, is the column as it is meant to appear.
I may give up. I've been struggling to write something of a quality that satisfies me and is also a fit for the local readership. I've also been struggling with mishaps like this, the column not appearing online, and so on.
So here's the column.
Last week several stories led Desert Sage to ponder the difference between responsibility and guilt.
When you study ethics you learn about two kinds of responsibility. There is something called "role responsibility" that is often confused with "moral responsibility." They are different. Imagine a first responder who says after a brave rescue: "I am not a hero, I was just doing my job." In that humble statement, she makes a distinction between fulfilling a role (as a rescuer) and getting moral credit for it. Credit and blame have to do with moral responsibility.
Whether or not you believe ethics has to do with a Creator, this is about culture. You own personal responsibility for your actions yet you are not alone. As Willard Gaylin put it: "Freedom demands responsibility; autonomy demands culpability." You exist as an individual and as part of a society.
For instance, there is the disturbing story of Kenneth Jehle, the Albuquerque schoolteacher accused of harassing and inappropriately touching numerous girls at three different schools starting in 2002. Despite multiple complaints by students, parents, co-workers, and even a police report filed by an officer of the Albuquerque Public Schools, Jehle's career flourished until he was fired in 2014. His undoing only came after one family sued the district, Jehle himself, and two principals who allegedly covered for him. Last week, APS settled the lawsuit for $750,000.
Jehle's individual guilt is one matter, but a deeper question concerns how the district failed in its role, which is to maintain a safe learning environment. How did this problem continue for so long without Jehle being held accountable? Does APS not track teachers with a history of complaints? Why did principal Sam Obenshain repeatedly dismiss complaints about this teacher, even bringing Jehle with him after he transferred to another school? Obenshain arguably put students in harm's way by this negligence, yet he is still the head of that school - still charged with the safety and welfare of children.
Unless there are visible and binding changes at APS, a key social obligation has been shirked despite the cash settlement.
We can be generous or stingy with our sense of communal responsibility. The men who shot up Paris on November 13 may have shouted "Allahu akbar," but they are not true representations of typical Muslims. Ordinary Muslims are not to blame for what they did. Nonetheless, Muslims around the world have spoken out to denounce terrorism as anti-Islamic even as assaults on anyone construed to be a Muslim have risen drastically. This is a generous (but also defensive) expansion of a shared "role responsibility."
Then came the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on November 27. Clinics providing abortions have been targets of domestic terrorism for decades. Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups have often encouraged tactics of harassment and fear, while distancing themselves from any responsibility for actual violence. Politicians play this game, too.
Early indications suggest Robert Dear, the alleged shooter, may be deranged and not representative of a movement. Nonetheless, a pro-life activist in Las Cruces, Mark Cavaliere, generously expanded his "role responsibility" as a leader of Las Cruces for Life. He drew an ethical line where Operation Rescue and certain presidential candidates will not.
In a statement published on NMPolitics.net, Cavaliere wrote: "No person who carries out, intends to carry out, or justifies in theory such acts of violence has any part in our movement... We furthermore pledge to redouble our efforts to advance a climate of nonjudgmental understanding and peaceful non-violence."
There are some national figures who could benefit from his example.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
At this writing, we know very little about Robert Dear. We know what he did, but as yet very little has been publicized about why he thinks he did what he did.
I'm going to use that phrase a lot: why he thinks he did what he did.
Because we are all experts on terrorism now and keen evaluators of the relative sanity of different persons labeled as terrorists. It goes on in the press and in people's social media activity. The pressure to process information and analyze it even when facts are sparse.
We know Robert Dear turned up at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs yesterday morning, where he produced an AK-47 and proceeded to shoot people. We know he wounded several people and succeeded in killing three of them, one of whom was a police officer. We know he was arrested and taken into custody. We have seen his mug shot and know his name.
We can conjecture about his choice of venue and his motives. Violence at abortion clinics has been a fact of life for years, occasionally rising to the level of murder. Some of those incidents involved people who believed they were soldiers in a great cause. The area where this took place has a large number of very conservative, Christianist thinkers who have sometimes radical views of politics. That may or may not be a coincidence. When it comes to those who target abortion clinics based on religious ideas, wow much validity do we give to such motivation?
The man who pointed a gun at me and demanded my money on a quiet street in Los Angeles a decade ago was not a "terrorist." Yet I felt plenty terrified at the time.
If that man had called me "wop" or "honky" or "commie rat" or something similar he might be called a "terrorist." The degree of terror I felt would be about the same.The label of "terrorism" describes something about what he did and what he was thinking. It would influence what charges would be brought against him if we were apprehended. The threat to my body in that encounter would remain a constant.
This should not be interpreted as me giving anyone the benefit of the doubt or making excuses for violence. Nor should it be interpreted as me erasing terrorism. The point is, "terrorist" is a label often wielded for political purposes. It is a scare word that gets flung around unconsciously.
Those leaping on this developing story to rehearse their views about terrorism, white males, and Christian fringe politics in America, are doing so ahead of their actual knowledge. They might be right. This might be exactly what it looks like. But we don't know that yet.
I'm comfortable saying "I don't know yet," especially as regards terrorism, because the selection of this word as a descriptor of violence is overtly political. Some acts of violence are called terrorism and some are not.
Occupy Wall Street participants were routinely called "terrorists" for the act of occupying a city park and engaging in political demonstrations, up to and including non-violent civil disobedience. MLK engaged in such actions - and was thought of as a "terrorist" or equivalent terms at the time, but this is not how history describes him. People who block a supply road to a fracking facility will be called "terrorists" and tried under terrorism laws. Are they terrorists?
I think about people like the Unabomber. He's a famous "terrorist." But he was also obsessive and paranoid. He thinks he was trying to be a political revolutionary. Yet his political manifesto didn't make sense. Which means he is not a reliable narrator of his own story.
If I hallucinate purple dragons and act out in public based on my deranged belief, when assessing judgment and penalty for what I do, it is not necessary or helpful to indulge my false belief in purple dragons. They aren't real. And the Unabomber's political campaign wasn't real. It was a purple dragon. We don't have to legitimize purple dragons by pretending they are subjects of serious political violence.
Are all terrorists crazy? Osama bin Laden is morally wrong, in my view, but he wasn't crazy. He was in fact quite rational. And our reaction to the September 11 attacks vindicated his view of the western world. We played right into his hands, as we are doing again with the Daesh attacks in Paris. So I think the Unabomber is crazy, but I don't think Osama bin Laden is crazy. How do we choose words like terrorist and crazy? I think these matters are worth some reflection. Especially when talking about an incident where we know nothing as yet about why this man thinks he did what he did. (What he did is not in dispute; we don't know his motivation and cannot assess his state of mind.)
Maybe "crazy" isn't a good word, either. Is this a clinical diagnosis or a catch-all phrase for behavior that seems irrational or strange?
I am perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know what this is yet" when that statement is true. I don't know what Dear had in his mind when he decided to do this, or if he even had possession of his mind. I don't know if he is grieving, angry, hallucinating. I don't know if he identifies as a Christian or cares about abortion. There are indications that he might. That might be the story that develops. I'm willing to let it develop.
There will be plenty of time given our addiction to 24 hour news cycles and instantaneous commentary to say the things we want to say about gun control, terrorism, religion, and democracy, and all those things we want to talk about. President Obama has already made a statement, as he must, pointing out that it should not be so easy for a person to show up in a public place with a Kalashnikov (a military weapon) and kill people en masse. Some of those conversations will be worthwhile and I will surely participate in a few of them. But I'm not interested in standing on events like a dais where I deliver my rehearsed lectures - I'd like to pause, breathe, and listen. I talk a lot but hope I'm doing so with my feet on the ground, not in some echo chamber.
We might learn this is a guy who thinks he was striking a blow in a holy war over the unborn.
We might learn he was reacting to some other idea, and chose Planned Parenthood for a different reason. We might learn he intended to hit the nearby shopping center and ended up going into the clinic instead. I don't know. Neither do you, at the moment I type this, though later today we might know more. (Some people are so certain in their knowledge, I wonder why they aren't out saving lives.)
We don't always have to act like we know. The mind that thinks it knows things it doesn't is very much like the mind of people who do these things.
We don't always have to throw words around that are vague and slippery in their definitions.
And I never use the word "evil." I don't think these things have supernatural causes. They are darkly, terribly human.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
The "Desert Sage" column appears in the Deming Headlight on Mondays, and has typically appeared in print editions of the Las Cruces Sun News and Silver City Sun News. For a couple of months, however, they have not been posting the column online unless I nag them about it. (KRWG has been re-posting them a day later.) But it's not really my job to nag them - I'm a vendor, not an employee.
I was especially hoping they'd run it this week - to my knowledge, no one else has brought up Governor Anaya's "Sanctuary Proclamation" of 1986 and compared it to Governor Martinez's resistance to Syrian refugees being settled in New Mexico. It also invokes Thanksgiving so it is time-sensitive. The column appeared in print editions but not on any of Gannett's websites.
So here it is. I like this one not because the writing is great or anything (I'm still chafing hard against the 600 word limit so they all feel a bit hammered down to me), but because I think the argument is relevant and would stir up some healthy and constructive debate about the issue of refugees during a week that has been loaded with misinformation.
This piece was also published at KRWG and New Mexico Political Report.
This week most of us will celebrate Thanksgiving, perhaps with the traditional turkey and mashed potatoes, and since we live in New Mexico there might also be tamales, capirotada, perhaps cranberries laced with local pecans.
Amid overeating and football, a few might even reflect on the meaning of Thanksgiving for a moment. The story of the first Thanksgiving is the story of a vulnerable population welcomed to the home of another people. In a nation torn by political battles over immigration and refugees, particularly the Syrian refugee crisis, Thanksgiving is highly significant.
Here is a New Mexico story for Thanksgiving.
On Good Friday in 1986, Governor Toney Anaya started a political wildfire by declaring New Mexico a "sanctuary state" for refugees seeking political asylum from the killing fields of El Salvador and Guatemala. Anaya argued that the Reagan administration discriminated against refugees from Central America by declaring them "economic refugees," denying their persecution and deporting them while treating European refugees with more deference.
Anaya was declaring conscientious resistance to federal law, stating that employees, officers, and agencies should not "assist or voluntarily cooperate with Immigration and Naturalization Service investigations or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of immigration law by Salvadorans and Guatemalans.” The governor stood on symbolic rather than legal ground. Then as now, states could not countermand federal immigration law or foreign policy. Anaya succeeded, however, in bringing political asylum into the national spotlight. He paid a steep political price for it.
The Governor argued that the federal government was violating the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as the Geneva Conventions by deporting legitimate political refugees to face persecution and murder. In an article for the Hofstra Law Review, Anaya cited U.S. policies in Central America to show that foreign policy goals were conflicting with our humanitarian obligations under Geneva. Those obligations are binding under international law.
Almost 30 years later, New Mexico is once again bucking federal policy on political refugees - but from the opposite side. Last week, Governor Susana Martinez jumped on an anti-refugee, muslim-bashing bandwagon along with 30 other governors in a race to the bottom of a political sewer. Citing the November 13 terrorist attack in Paris, Martinez stated that she "strongly opposes the Obama Administration’s plan to accept more Syrian refugees until there is a very clear plan in place to properly vet and place the refugees."
For starters, none of the Paris shooters identified at the time I write this were Syrian. They were European nationals. (Who will protect us from the Belgians?) Syrian refugees are the victims of ISIS, not its collaborators. As for the vetting process: refugees go through the most intensive security checks of anyone admitted to the United States, and Syrian refugees go through an even tighter process already.
President Obama has committed the United States to accepting 10,000 refugees from the civil war in Syria, a very modest number compared to some of our allies, notably Germany (a much smaller country). Days after the November 13 terror, France actually increased its commitment to welcome refugees from Syria.
We cannot shirk our responsibility for the instability we have produced elsewhere in the world. Our policies of regime change, bombing countries into smithereens and slaughtering innocents in non-declared wars with no definable end, produce the very chaos that breeds terrorists like standing water breeds mosquitoes. We are bound not only by international law to assist refugees, but by human decency. Accepting refugees is reasonably safe - and the duty of a moral society.
It is also consistent with the spirit of Thanksgiving.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
|President George W. Bush visits an Islamic center on September 16, 2001|
[Taking a different tone after my previous two letters - here and here - I point out an opportunity for actual moral leadership in the midst of the mess. Because optimism.]
Congratulations on assuming the Chair of the Republican Governors Association. It is a position of some prominence and must be an opportunity to do some good, not just - as is typically reported - a stepping stone to a national stage and a body for doing partisan political work. Although it is also that.
It is a leadership position within the political party and an opportunity to walk back some of the frankly crazy talk we have had just before Thanksgiving, much of it (though certainly not all of it) from governors, on the topic of Syrian refugees, terrorism, and muslims.
1.) If you will continue to object to the United States commitment to accepting a modest number of Syrian refugees, it is important for you to cite specific problems or questions about the process. The process, as we know, is quite extensive - it is indeed the most difficult way to gain admission to the United States. Which is why the refugee process has not been a gateway for terrorists. Knowing the facts on the long vetting process, and that it is continuously reviewed and improved, governors need either to raise specific factual questions about the process. Simply claiming a process does not exist is incorrect and irresponsible.
2.) Governors need to remember the week of September 11, 2001, when President George W. Bush visited an Islamic center and made a brief, cogent address in the company of muslim leaders clearly distinguishing terrorists from the body of citizens - anywhere from five to twelve million in the United States. It is profoundly unreasonable and unjust to insist that Islam is typified by a few criminals (who are regularly denounced by muslim leaders and clerics as well as the body faithful) and not the millions of muslims who are ordinary citizens of our communities.
3.) Neither is it reasonable to hold that people fleeing the civil war in Syria are sympathetic to the cause of Da-esh (aka ISIL or ISIS). The heightened fear of Syrian refugees is an overreaction to the events in Beirut, Paris, and Bamako, and the downing of a passenger plane over Egypt. Syrians were not involved in these attacks. This is as strange as blaming the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Korea rather than Japan.
Once we stop blaming the innocent for the actual terrorist activity that has taken place, we need leaders like yourself to help the country walk back from the fascistic rhetoric that has presented itself over the past week. Here is a brief review of the horrors:
- · A mayor in the state of Virginia recalled with approval theinternment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, one of the most shameful chapters of our history.
- · A state legislator from Rhode Island suggested putting Syrian refugees into concentration camps.
- · A front-running presidential candidate expressed interest in a national registry of muslims in the United States.
- · Two prominent candidates for president suggested implementing an illegal religious test for political refugees.
- · A prominent state legislator from Tennessee called for the National Guard to be deployed to move Syrian refugees already located here to INS facilities for confinement or deportation.
[NOTE FOR BLOG: I didn't even remember to mention the calls by leading presidential candidates to shut down mosques or businesses where muslims might gather and inspire radicals. The letter continues...]
These sentiments have been uttered by elected officials from both major parties. It is a frightening moment, and a time when we must be reminded of our broad values regarding justice, liberty, and human life; to say nothing of the rule of law.
You now have an opportunity to lead as a voice of reason and justice, to help us walk back from this rhetorical abyss. The elected officers who have said these things have not had to step own for taking this abhorrent positions. The result is that our country seems no longer a safe place for citizens or visitors who are muslim. We cannot allow that to stand.
If you took a leadership role in restoring balance and wisdom to this crisis, it would reflect well on you on a national stage, on your party, and on our state.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
|From an anti-immigrant rally in Bratislava in September|
Governor Susana Martinez
Office of the Governor
490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Hours after I mailed my letter yesterday, imploring you not to join the shameful example of other states whose governors announced an intention to block refugees from Syria from entering their states, your office issued a statement which included this message:
The Governor strongly opposes the Obama Administration’s plan to accept more Syrian refugees until there is a very clear plan in place to properly vet and place the refugees, and the voices of governors and the public can be heard.
To begin with: there is such a plan in place, and has been for decades. Refugees seeking admittance to the United States are vetted extensively in an inter-agency process. The success rate appears to be 100% as I cannot find a case where someone admitted to the United States as a refugee has engaged in terrorism. Can you? Making a statement that suggests our process for considering refugee applications is not already clear and effective is wrong and undermines public confidence in an effective public institution, without cause.
The terrorists who hit our country on September 11, 2001 were in the country on student and tourist visas. Will you also announce that tourists and students from the middle east are no longer welcome in New Mexico?
The federal government has made a commitment to accepting 10,000 refugees from the humanitarian crisis in Syria. This is a much smaller commitment than our allies have made, even though we own much blame for the instability in a region that has provided a haven for terrorism. Terrorism is drawn to spaces where there is not effective government. We and our allies have created those spaces with our reckless policies of endless war and "regime change" at our will. Those fleeing the bloodshed in Syria are targets of ISIS, not its collaborators. As for the recent attacks in Paris, as of this morning the perpetrators are not Syrians, but european nationals. The suspect at large this morning is Belgian.
For several years, I worked with the American Jewish Committee in their Los Angeles headquarters. In that capacity I had frequent interaction with survivors of the Holocaust, and the generation that followed them. The history of that humanitarian crisis weighs on my mind. Can you imagine the United States refusing to admit Jewish refugees merely because they, like their oppressors, were German?
As a matter of law, a governor of a state cannot close its borders to people of a particular ethnic background at will, whether they are students, tourists, refugees, or naturalized citizens. These announcements are, therefore, simply for political gain. It is easy to stir up fear of immigrants, especially those from the middle east, especially those who are muslim.
Here in Deming, we have a number of families who have immigrated legally from Somalia. They wear traditional head coverings - I presume they are Sunni muslims. In any case, I think of them as I read of a nationwide backlash against ordinary muslim people as once again they are scapegoated and associated with the actions of terrorists. It weighs on my heart when my countrymen behave this way - and even worse when our political leaders, people like yourself, play to these dark sentiments.
It's hard to take back a statement like the one from your office yesterday, but you left yourself some wiggle room. I am lending my voice in the hope that you will take a step back from this position and speak on this matter with a little more wisdom and statesmanship - especially while you are being considered for a more prominent role in our country's governance.
Monday, November 16, 2015
|Map courtesy of Vox.vom|
Governor Susana Martinez
Office of the Governor
490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Several states, including our neighboring state of Texas, have had their governors announce that they would do whatever is in their power to prevent the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other parts of the middle east that are ablaze with violence from nation states as well as terrorist organizations. I am writing proactively to encourage you, if it is within my powers of persuasion to do so, not to join these efforts, as they are reactionary and xenophobic, and would reflect poorly on New Mexico.
These governors are misinforming the public by suggesting that the refugee process endangers American security. This is simply not the case.
To be accepted as a refugee by the United States, applicants must complete a multi-stage vetting process by the United States that follows refugee designation by the United Nations. We have accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees from the middle east (and millions worldwide) over my lifetime. Not one of them has engaged in terrorism. It's hard to impeach that record, and it is a testament to the capabilities of conventional law enforcement and the screening processes we have in place.
Besides this, it is not reasonable to assume that refugees fleeing ISIS have common cause with ISIS. These people are fleeing ISIS, as well as the Assad regime that holds state power there. These people are targets of ISIS, not its collaborators.
The governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas (so far), are appealing to a cowardly and xenophobic impulse following the attacks in Beirut and Paris (and the bombing of a Russian passenger plane), but we have a moral obligation to the victims of regional instability (to which the United States has contributed with its own policies). The United States has made a rather modest commitment to absorbing refugees from this region. It is an embarrassment that these governors have made a bid to resist that obligation. I hope you will have the moral courage to reject a similar course. Let us not see New Mexico join this ignominy.