Letter to NPR...

Hello WUWM friends,

I'm a long time listener, and a recovering fundamentalist from the far religious-right, but even I was disappointed when I heard the reference to the "Cato Institute: a libertarian" think-tank. First, the Cato institute is not Libertarian in their practice of their focus. They have no philosophical basis for that claim. It's just a tag they've chosen to purport to seem ideologically ethereal. 

By now we know that the Cato Institute is a puppet org for the interests of the Koch brothers. Created by them to gird their political agendas, the Cato institute is now understood to be a ruse. Remember, they're behind the "climategate" scandal, the instigators of bad press versus the entire climate science community, and the biggest contributors to efforts to roll back environmental initiatives.

That's ancillary to the story I heard this morning in the 9:00 hour, which was about teachers and their reputations in the public sector. Twice the Cato Institute was referenced and given a chance for their rep to comment on perceptions about teachers and their unions. This is outrageous! (sorry, I had to use an exclamation) The Koch brothers have been funding ads in WI and around the country which have done much like what climategate did, skew the public perception against teachers and their unions. 

In WI, just after 100,000 plus teachers and supporters of unions were at the Capital, amidst weeks of protests, the Koch brothers, through their second of three puppet orgs, The Americans for Prosperity, began running ads which demonized teachers for missing classes, and their unions as thugs and malcontents. The very same ad played in your NPR story may have been funded by the Koch's, then your reporter cites their research into the perceptions?

I know that the Cato institute is the equivalent of an intra-agency metrics tracking entity to measure the results of their own efforts to sway perception and gain political capital. But NPR, as the last bastion of objective journalism in USA, should not post their quarterly numbers, so to speak. Please make every effort to expunge any notion that the Cato Institute has any credibility or objectivity. They don't . It's time that NOVA dump funding from one ot the Koch brothers and it's time that NPR severs any and all ties to any of the 35 or so orgs which they fund.

That story was not journalism, it was an infomercial.

Thank you for your time. I've certainly come a long, long way from the days when I would have eaten that up.

Peace,

Christian E. Vettrus

Milwaukee, WI USA

Sagging Jeans Prohibition Not Merely Intrusive

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/14/nation/la-na-baggy-pants-20110415


"intrusiveness by government has reached a new peak in America, with the State of Florida now in the process of legislating a dress code that bans baggy pants. Seriously! I can't believe the Florida electorate voted in the current governor and legislature in order to get laws like this." -- fb friend


A friend posted this on Facebook regarding a new law in Florida to prohibit sagging/baggy jeans.


Although I agree that it is intrusive. I am torn. I live in the inner-city of one of the most segregated cities in USA, and worked with semi-incarcerated juveniles for 5 years.

Sagging is a problem. I see youths with their pants beneath their manhood out on the streets regularly. There might even be a belt cinched, but it's beneath their rear end. This is indecent at the very least.

But the real problem is that those pants with 28" legs are used to hide weapons and things. We confiscated them as contraband when the kids were admitted to our facilities (I worked at two different ones). I've seen a gangbanger produce a baseball bat from one of those pairs of jeans on one occasion, and that's not the worst sort of weapon that they conceal.

These pants are also used for property theft and shoplifting. Again, they hold an awful lot.

I've not been quite able to discern the sagging phenom as a counterpart of this second issue, but often the cause is quite different than one might think. I sometimes wonder if someone sags their jeans to show that they're unarmed. The gangbanger who is armed is often grasping the jeans waist and possibly the weapon with one hand at all times, so who knows?

I know that when I first lived in the 'hood I was judgemental about why folks walk down the middle of the street and not the sidewalk. Then I realized that people often don't shovel snow off the walks in the winter round here... and that you are less likely to be jumped if you walk in the street. So it actually makes some sense.

Of course, the drug dealers walk in the street to facilitate quick transactions also.

Anyway, don't be so quick to apply the same outrage to this issue. It isn't just minority youths who wear these things. It's all types of them. They're kids, and they need structure anyway.

But they're not the problem. The companies like JNCO who produce these clothes are... and they produce jeans with logos that are tailored to gang bangers. They have five and six pointed crowns embroidered on them depending upon the maker.

What people don't realize is that many major clothing and shoe manufacturers have actually tailored their lines of clothing to gangs. Converse, Nike, Starter and others are notorious for this. It's a fact that most white folks don't see. But I can identify clothes which are used to "flag" for gang membership.

The baggy jeans are an emblem of a dangerous subculture which is not race-bound. It's complicated for sure. No simple answers here. Big Brother in this case is more right than wrong...

Blessed are the flexible for they'll not be bent out of shape.

May I learn to bend with the wind, 
like a rock in a stream.

May I understand the patience,
of sincere transformation.

Mold my heart like play-doh,
press it into childlike shapes.

Quench the raging fires,
which cause my heart to burn.

Still my desperattion,
and quiet my labored breath.

For I am thoroughly fragile,
and completely broken.

My Unfathomable Love Reciprocated

I'm immeasurably blessed to be loved by my wife. 
I am flabbergasted by how much I love her. 
For the life of me, 
I cannot figure out why she loves me.
  
But it's the gasoline in my tank,
She's the balm to my wounds,

My muse and my counselor,
And her presence makes me swoon.

Good Friday

Today was the first time I have been able to attend an Episcopalian Good Friday service. We've been attending our church for about nine years now, but each year I have been unable or unwilling to take the time off to attend the service. Or, we've been traveling to our parents houses for Easter family time.

The latter has always been a tradition for both of our families. It's been a time to get together around the Christian holiday and have a brief visit, usually complicated by the fact that our places of employment don't give time off for it, and that my wife has often worked for churches. She works as a part-time lay minister right now for our church, and it seems important that she be here on most high holy days for that reason.

But usually we're out of town. This year, in my fortieth year on the planet, the time seemed right for what might be a permanent change. We decided to stay home and immerse ourselves in the traditions of our Holy Week. It's been great so far.

I've always been more inspired by penitence than celebration, so Holy Week seems to fit my worship posture (prostrate) of choice, and the Good Friday liturgy was incredibly profound. I must admit that it was quite a bit longer than I had liked, and that my knees and back were sore after the 75 minute service. But that seemed appropriate to the day.

What was most encouraging was the liturgy itself, which mentions many things in the solemn collects which I have never prayed for in a church, even ours. I remember praying for all levels of government by name, including the United Nations (which is the unique part), and a detailed set of prayers for people who don't know Christ, and for people of varying degrees of faith. There was a sense of the evangelical mixed with the thorough desire for unity among the body of Christ. That's not unusual, but the depth of the prayers was worth noting.

My wife noted appropriately that the anthems before the cross (kneeling) were also profound. I was feeling quite a bit of back pain by this point, and kneeling was making my knees hurt, so my focus was wavering. But I did not miss the sung anthem "Faithful Cross"...

Faithful Cross above all others, 
One and only noble tree, 
None in foliage, none in blossom, 
None in fruit thy equal be,
Sweetest wood and sweetest iron,
Sweetest weight is hung on thee.
AMEN 
(Venatius Honorious Fortunatus, tr. J.M. Neale)

Even communion was different, with humble vessels and without the full blessing, provided for us from the "reserve host" which was a very Catholic concept for me. I guess I keep thinking we're much more removed from the transubstantiation issue than we are. There's something which was very serious about that, and how much that signifies.

I've not sorted it all out yet, but my experience was powerful, albeit subtle. I was quieted and humbled by my own humanity in the presence of the divine. The old testament Psalm 22, read in unison was such a distinctly prophetic passage that it almost seemed silly that the folks who were studiers of the Psalms as part of the Torah were not sold on Jesus as their Messiah. But even now we reject Christ. I do so daily by my sin, and that does not make sense. If I could just keep the knowledge of this sort of experience in front of me at all times...

Learning to Err.

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

Today on facebook there was a TED video posted about what to learn from being wrong. That made me think that being wrong is what courageous people do well.

I, by contrast, am a coward. I detest being wrong, particularly if it was something which could be helped by good information or proper planning. I've learned to live with it uncomfortably, mostly because of nearly sixteen years of marriage. No amount of planning or information can keep me from just being wrong in the context of a marriage. I just am... and far too often.

I really, really hate to be wrong. I hate taking risks where I might fail. I avoid the opportunity to be wrong. This means that I am not taking risks which will employ my creativity, engage my mind, and inspire my soul.

I need to learn to be wrong-er. I need to be courageous enough to live.

Uninformed Voters

A PBS "Need To Know" article recently compared uninformed voters to drunk drivers. That's been said before with less poignancy, but the reply has always been something about how our system is set up to insure that this isn't a problem, i.e. that's why we need the electoral college.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/are-bad-voters-like-drunk-drivers-new-book-says-they-are-and-that-they-should-stay-home-on-election-day/8609/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=pbs

In our current political climate, post Citizens United, where the attack ads are funded by anonymous benefactors like the Koch brothers via shadow groups like Americans for Prosperity, and often girded by faux research groups like their very own Cato Institute, I would wager that there are more misinformed voters by far. Few people invest enough time to do the research of understanding the basis for their own political opinions, even less the motivations of their candidates or the track record of their party of choice.

This is why I have no party. I am slightly more informed than the average American. I've learned this by traveling overseas, and by interacting with folks on all sides of issues at home and abroad. It's clear to me that Europeans have a more informed view of our national politics and its impact than we do. There are many reasons for that, but they're not justifications.

In the Upper Midwest (at least MN and WI) we work harder. Seriously, having worked in a field where I traveled on the road 90% for several years, working in AZ, CO, GA, NV, IL, MI, OH, IN, and others, I saw the difference in drive and commitment to hard work which is inherent to a Wisconsinite. I was told to slow down and take it easy in several states in varied dialects. I say this because it is part of the problem. In Wisconsin there are a large majority of folks who work very hard at their jobs, for less pay, and don't have time to invest in politics.

They rely on old fashioned values and litmus tests. They vote based upon a couple of issues and often vote a straight ticket. I always that way for years, and that was the way most of my church brethren and coworkers did too. We were sure that we were right, and we didn't bother to look any further.

We trusted our party leaders and elected GOP officials to do what they said. This was a very satisfying position to take. It was a religion-backed, morally superior, self-justified stance which led to arrogance and overconfidence. I used to browbeat and argue my way toward belittling the "other" into realizing that they were wrong (at least that they couldn't change my mind).

But the first President Bush changed that for me. He was a liar who duped me. He was no "Reagan Republican", and that was what I wanted at the time. He was a waffling centrist who would do whatever he needed to do to get his own agenda (secret to us) accomplished. At that point I had little awareness of how prevalent this was throughout politics.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I changed my mind. I began doubting the integrity or the positions of my party. Traveling overseas, and moving ot an inner-city stripped the last bastions of allegiance away. I saw the impact of policies I took for granted.

So now I am a hater of politics, but a lover of transparency in it. I pursue fairness and centrism wherever I can find it. Instead of being driven to the polarized sides of our political climate by the disparate positions, I have continued to stake my claim near the center. Admittedly, I have been more left than right for quite some time. But I won't ever vote a straight-ticket on principle. Instead, I try to vote based on which candidate appears to be the most fair-minded and reasonable.

Unfortunately that is not always electable nowadays. Our PAC groups and Koch orgs are lighting fires all around, driving the ignorant masses toward fear-driven votes for the GOP, a party which no longer feigns compassion toward the poor or the needy. People are angry and that makes them as unstable as drunk drivers, yeah, I think I agree. They're easily incited toward political bad choices, at their own expense--and at the expense of those they crash into.

The fact that Russ Feingold lost to Ron Johnson is the best example of how fairness and centrism can't win any more. Feingold was a maverick who voted on his conscience (right or wrong) rather than along party lines, and he was willing to work across the aisle. But he was beaten by a guy who was uncivil and demeaning in his ads. He motivated the angry right to oust a man who worked very hard to represent the progressive WI agenda in favor of a rich dude with a message of hatred and arrogance.

The reality that most of us live in the center, but vote on the fringes (and that a large percentage of Americans don't vote at all) is troubling. We're forced to take sides. The two party system is often one where there is no choice which meets the majority of the values of the voters. I think this is why there are so many who don't vote. They don't have a party.

But I digress. The problem of uninformed voters is more a problem of misinformed ones, post Citizens United. PAC groups can run ads which amplify their corporate free speech rights. These ads are often 90% lies wrapped in 10% truths, and that makes them an insidious evil. Their messages are couched in incendiary and hateful language which is meant to divide folks and motivate them to vote angry.

Those sort of voters have the right to vote, but they should not vote. They're unwitting pawns in a corporate chess game which works very hard at undermining government measures meant to instill fairness and reason in society. When we eradicate these laws we create a more hostile society without protection for its citizens. That motivates our anger even more and inspires even more divisiveness and angry voting.

I'd not choose to take away the keys from the anger-drunk voter. Rather, I would like to create a prohibition of corporate funding for hate ads. I'd like to eliminate the drug at the source. I'd like slanderous ads to end, and for PAC groups and corporate free speech to end. Let people vote, not companies.