I probably won't be able to blog for much of next week, since I'm going into the hospital for knee surgery-- it's my third surgery in three years, and believe me, I'm really tired of spending time in hospitals (rehab isn't a ton of fun either). But I remain eternally grateful that I have health insurance, and glad that I live near good doctors and good hospitals. Several of my friends aren't so fortunate. They didn't have health insurance from their jobs, and now they are unable to work.
No, it's not that they are unwilling to find another job, and it's not that they are lazy-- in fact, both worked hard all their lives. But their jobs did not provide any benefits (one worked as a home health aide, one worked in a factory); and when they were left with permanent disabilities, they both ended up on fixed incomes-- which are quite low. After the Affordable Care Act was signed into law (and please note-- neither of them is a fan of President Obama), they were encouraged when they learned about the Medicaid Expansion, which would make them both eligible for health care they could not afford up to that point.
But alas, determined to make a point about their dislike of the president and their opposition to "Obamacare," the Republican governors and legislatures of their states refused to accept the Medicaid Expansion, even though doing so would have been such a blessing to a large number of poor people, who would have been covered at a relatively minimal cost. (In fairness, a few Republican governors DID accept the Medicaid Expansion, showing a willingness to help people who desperately needed it; but most Red State governors did not.)
This should not be political. Like it or hate it, studies show the Affordable Care Act has been a major benefit for millions of Americans; some have even credited it with saving their lives-- one Wisconsin Republican named Brent Brown, who acknowledged he never voted for President Obama and had even made hateful remarks about him, completely changed his mind once he got sick. Unable to get health insurance before the ACA, due to a pre-existing condition, he was now able to gain access to good healthcare, and have his serious illness treated. He wrote to the president and thanked him.
Okay fine, "Obamacare" isn't perfect, and yes, it has some flaws. Since it relies on working with the private, for-profit insurance industry, there have been been challenges in achieving lower costs; procedures and medications in the US remain outrageously high, especially when compared to other countries. Bernie Sanders and others have suggested a Medicare For All plan, but in our current political environment, there's little chance such a plan will be given a fair hearing any time soon. Meanwhile, the subject of why healthcare costs in the US are so high (and no, it's not always because of "waste, fraud, and abuse") is worth a serious conversation, one that should go beyond partisan rhetoric and talking points.
The fact remains that for all its flaws, the ACA has given many Americans coverage for the first time, and that's a step in the right direction. And yet, my Republican friends continue to express their disdain for it, and every Republican candidate for president has pledged to repeal it-- even though there is NO Republican plan to replace it, and lord knows, the GOP has had plenty of time to come up with one. I truly wish they would. Meanwhile, some of the problems with our current healthcare system could be remedied if only congress would act-- like, why can't Medicare negotiate for lower prices on prescription drugs? It was congress that forbade this back in 2003, as a concession to the pharmaceutical industry (once again, we see the power lobbyists have; those who contribute to campaigns get the ear of the candidates in a way that ordinary citizens do not).
And so, here we are: I will get to go to a good hospital, see well-respected doctors, and get the treatment that will (I hope) relieve some of the pain I've been dealing with over the past few months. But my two friends, by virtue of where they live, are not able to get the care they need, and there is no relief for either of them in sight. That geography should determine the quality of one's health care, or how much (or how little) access one has to much-needed medicines seems unfair to me. I want to hear answers from the candidates about how they will solve our healthcare problems, but thus far, I don't see both sides sitting down to come up with some solutions. And there continues to be a system of haves and have-nots while politicians in congress (and make no mistake-- both sides helped to create this mess) act as if there's nothing they can do. But there is. And it's sad that too many of them lack the political will to even make the effort.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Are Conservatives on Campus an Endangered Species?
When I entered college in the early 1960s, most campuses were still very conservative; at Northeastern University, boys were expected to wear jackets and ties to class, and girls were expected to wear dresses. Professors too were expected to wear "businesslike" attire, and most maintained a very formal (and somewhat aloof) manner when talking with students. I was never taught anything positive about Marxism, nor was I taught anything negative about McCarthyism. The war in Vietnam was necessary, I was told; and those who protested it were just anti-American (or worse yet, hippie Marxists). Most of my professors were white men, and they were in charge: students could discuss the course material, but the professor was always right, since he had much more knowledge than we did.
As for the courses, I was studying liberal arts, but there was nothing "liberal" about it. We rarely if ever analyzed the work of poets or authors who were non-European-- the curriculum revolved around the so-called DWMs ("dead white males"). History courses utilized the traditional historiography of the "Great Man Theory"-- we mainly studied famous kings, presidents, and generals; and when the story of immigrants was mentioned, it often focused on how quickly they abandoned their "old country" ways and assimilated into the majority culture. Courses like Western Civilization focused on the important contributions of European Christians (Muslims were warlike and trying to conquer by the sword; and Jews were an afterthought-- or as the historian Arnold Toynbee called us, fossils of history, a people who didn't quite fit anywhere). I was taught about the "Protestant work ethic," but I was rarely taught about why poverty existed-- it was common knowledge that if you worked hard, you would get ahead, and if you were poor, you must be lazy. Girls were still being taught that while it was okay to attend college, the real reason for being there was to find a potential husband; and of course, no self-respecting girl wanted to enter a profession other than teaching, nursing, or secretarial work.
For some of my conservative friends, those traditional attitudes are much needed, and sadly lacking, on college campuses today. As I am told on a regular basis, colleges have become hotbeds of radicalism, where innocent students are being taught to hate America, where History courses teach that Europeans were nothing but brutal colonizers, and where white kids are taught to be ashamed of being white. If you get your news and commentary from conservative media, there seems to be genuine nostalgia for the (alleged) good old days, that era when everybody knew their place and nobody complained about it. There is also a dominant belief in right-wing media that conservative professors are not getting hired at most colleges-- or if they somehow do get a job, they are told to keep their retrograde views to themselves. As conservative media tells it, college has become a liberal, multicultural paradise, and conservatives are not welcome unless they know when to keep quiet.
So, I was both surprised and disappointed when this popular (but, in my opinion, flawed) right-wing discourse was recently reinforced by an article in the New York Times, in which columnist Nicholas Kristof claimed that yes, liberals on campus do have contempt for conservative points of view: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
Needless to say, I disagreed with large parts of the article: for one thing, the comment section of Facebook postings is rarely a reliable measure of the average person's attitude. As I've noted in previous blogs, the internet often brings out the worst in people, so finding some rude posts about conservatives does not prove "liberal contempt," any more than finding rude posts about liberals proves "conservative contempt." I also disagreed with other points Mr. Kristof made, and I said so in the comment section. Soon, I ended up in a brief Twitter war with a number of conservatives who came at me with "See? Even the liberal New York Times admits that conservatives aren't welcome on college campuses."
But with all due respect to Mr. Kristof, his "liberal intolerance" theory isn't entirely true. I've been a professor for the better part of thirty years, and I've taught all over the country. While some campuses are indeed more liberal, that doesn't mean conservative professors don't exist, nor have I seen them being treated with either contempt or intolerance. I've had some very interesting discussions with some conservative professors (and students) at my current place of employment, and I can assure you that no rocks were thrown; and as far as I know, we have all remained friendly with each other. It is also worth noting that just like there are liberal campuses, there are many other universities that are quite conservative. For example, many schools that are run by religious denominations (such as Liberty University or Brigham Young University) often display a conservative ideology; and while they may occasionally have liberal guest speakers, the dominant belief system is conservative, and the professors and students are expected to uphold those beliefs; publicly deviating from them is generally not encouraged. Of course, none of my conservative friends ever mention this, since it doesn't fit in with their insistence that ALL universities are run by liberals. As it turns out, the truth is more nuanced, and it often depends on who owns your school.
And let's take a closer look at the "campuses are hotbeds of radicalism" discourse. Here's how it unfolds: it starts with a story on Fox News or in the conservative blogosphere about some crazy thing an ultra-leftie professor said; it doesn't matter if the person was taken out of context, or if the person is some fringe instructor that nobody on campus takes seriously. The story immediately takes on a life of its own, with the professor being elevated to a status of "typical liberal professor." His or her quote is sent around in outraged emails, expanded upon by right-wing talk shows, and then used in numerous social media comments to "prove" that ALL leftie professors are disgraceful. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias-- selecting material that agrees with what you already believe-- and sad to say, it happens over and over. (And truth be told, my liberal friends do it too-- taking a totally bizarre remark from some right-wing scholar and then using that to "prove" that ALL righties are lunatics.)
I hate to disappoint my conservative friends, but the views of the extremists are NOT what's dominant on most of the so-called liberal campuses where I've worked. What's dominant is critical thinking-- teaching students both sides, exposing them to a wide range of views, and above all, showing them how to do research, evaluate evidence, and make informed decisions. And yes, it's true that most American History courses today are different from when I was in college. Today, we no longer present Americans as 100% right all the time (a wonderful belief, but not an accurate one); nor is the story only told through the eyes of "Great Men." But that's not necessarily a bad thing: including the voices of women, the poor, immigrants, or minorities tells a much more factual story, one that does not negate what white Europeans accomplished. (And teaching a more inclusive version of history is a far cry from the claim that we are teaching students to hate America.)
Where I currently teach, which is known as a "liberal university," I still find that certain departments are more liberal, and some actually lean conservative. However, across the campus, it's accurate to say that liberal views about social issues (like marriage equality or support for Planned Parenthood) are more common-- even among the students who identify as conservative; and it's also true for our Republican governor, by the way. Thus, a student who agreed with, let's say, Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin might feel it would be unpopular to say so-- although I have no evidence that anyone has been (or would be) silenced by our college's administration. Rather, sometimes people simply decide that certain "hot button" issues are just not worth arguing about-- it's called "self-censorship," and we all do it at one time or other. One other thing I've noticed: most of my students, especially the freshmen, follow whatever political beliefs they learned from their parents. Some of them will change their views as time passes, but not because I, or any other professor, tried to persuade them. Rather, they will develop their own viewpoints, some of which will mirror those of their parents and some of which will not. As I said, being exposed to a wide range of ideas and beliefs is what college is supposed to be about.
I know that nothing I say will persuade my conservative friends that I don't spend my days indoctrinating my students. Many conservatives remain certain that "liberal universities" are training the next generation of Marxists (I wonder how I got a job-- I've never been a fan of Marxism...); and they sincerely believe no self-respecting conservative is welcome on the average campus. Having seen it both ways-- campuses dominated by conservatives, and campuses dominated by liberals-- I'd like to see people from both ideologies in the classroom, and I'd like to believe that there are many campuses where diversity of viewpoints DOES occur. But then, people who get along with each other are rarely considered newsworthy, so you probably won't hear about them. It's conflict and division that sells; and so does the myth of the liberal campus, a harsh and cruel place where innocent conservatives are being persecuted every day...
As for the courses, I was studying liberal arts, but there was nothing "liberal" about it. We rarely if ever analyzed the work of poets or authors who were non-European-- the curriculum revolved around the so-called DWMs ("dead white males"). History courses utilized the traditional historiography of the "Great Man Theory"-- we mainly studied famous kings, presidents, and generals; and when the story of immigrants was mentioned, it often focused on how quickly they abandoned their "old country" ways and assimilated into the majority culture. Courses like Western Civilization focused on the important contributions of European Christians (Muslims were warlike and trying to conquer by the sword; and Jews were an afterthought-- or as the historian Arnold Toynbee called us, fossils of history, a people who didn't quite fit anywhere). I was taught about the "Protestant work ethic," but I was rarely taught about why poverty existed-- it was common knowledge that if you worked hard, you would get ahead, and if you were poor, you must be lazy. Girls were still being taught that while it was okay to attend college, the real reason for being there was to find a potential husband; and of course, no self-respecting girl wanted to enter a profession other than teaching, nursing, or secretarial work.
For some of my conservative friends, those traditional attitudes are much needed, and sadly lacking, on college campuses today. As I am told on a regular basis, colleges have become hotbeds of radicalism, where innocent students are being taught to hate America, where History courses teach that Europeans were nothing but brutal colonizers, and where white kids are taught to be ashamed of being white. If you get your news and commentary from conservative media, there seems to be genuine nostalgia for the (alleged) good old days, that era when everybody knew their place and nobody complained about it. There is also a dominant belief in right-wing media that conservative professors are not getting hired at most colleges-- or if they somehow do get a job, they are told to keep their retrograde views to themselves. As conservative media tells it, college has become a liberal, multicultural paradise, and conservatives are not welcome unless they know when to keep quiet.
So, I was both surprised and disappointed when this popular (but, in my opinion, flawed) right-wing discourse was recently reinforced by an article in the New York Times, in which columnist Nicholas Kristof claimed that yes, liberals on campus do have contempt for conservative points of view: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
Needless to say, I disagreed with large parts of the article: for one thing, the comment section of Facebook postings is rarely a reliable measure of the average person's attitude. As I've noted in previous blogs, the internet often brings out the worst in people, so finding some rude posts about conservatives does not prove "liberal contempt," any more than finding rude posts about liberals proves "conservative contempt." I also disagreed with other points Mr. Kristof made, and I said so in the comment section. Soon, I ended up in a brief Twitter war with a number of conservatives who came at me with "See? Even the liberal New York Times admits that conservatives aren't welcome on college campuses."
But with all due respect to Mr. Kristof, his "liberal intolerance" theory isn't entirely true. I've been a professor for the better part of thirty years, and I've taught all over the country. While some campuses are indeed more liberal, that doesn't mean conservative professors don't exist, nor have I seen them being treated with either contempt or intolerance. I've had some very interesting discussions with some conservative professors (and students) at my current place of employment, and I can assure you that no rocks were thrown; and as far as I know, we have all remained friendly with each other. It is also worth noting that just like there are liberal campuses, there are many other universities that are quite conservative. For example, many schools that are run by religious denominations (such as Liberty University or Brigham Young University) often display a conservative ideology; and while they may occasionally have liberal guest speakers, the dominant belief system is conservative, and the professors and students are expected to uphold those beliefs; publicly deviating from them is generally not encouraged. Of course, none of my conservative friends ever mention this, since it doesn't fit in with their insistence that ALL universities are run by liberals. As it turns out, the truth is more nuanced, and it often depends on who owns your school.
And let's take a closer look at the "campuses are hotbeds of radicalism" discourse. Here's how it unfolds: it starts with a story on Fox News or in the conservative blogosphere about some crazy thing an ultra-leftie professor said; it doesn't matter if the person was taken out of context, or if the person is some fringe instructor that nobody on campus takes seriously. The story immediately takes on a life of its own, with the professor being elevated to a status of "typical liberal professor." His or her quote is sent around in outraged emails, expanded upon by right-wing talk shows, and then used in numerous social media comments to "prove" that ALL leftie professors are disgraceful. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias-- selecting material that agrees with what you already believe-- and sad to say, it happens over and over. (And truth be told, my liberal friends do it too-- taking a totally bizarre remark from some right-wing scholar and then using that to "prove" that ALL righties are lunatics.)
I hate to disappoint my conservative friends, but the views of the extremists are NOT what's dominant on most of the so-called liberal campuses where I've worked. What's dominant is critical thinking-- teaching students both sides, exposing them to a wide range of views, and above all, showing them how to do research, evaluate evidence, and make informed decisions. And yes, it's true that most American History courses today are different from when I was in college. Today, we no longer present Americans as 100% right all the time (a wonderful belief, but not an accurate one); nor is the story only told through the eyes of "Great Men." But that's not necessarily a bad thing: including the voices of women, the poor, immigrants, or minorities tells a much more factual story, one that does not negate what white Europeans accomplished. (And teaching a more inclusive version of history is a far cry from the claim that we are teaching students to hate America.)
Where I currently teach, which is known as a "liberal university," I still find that certain departments are more liberal, and some actually lean conservative. However, across the campus, it's accurate to say that liberal views about social issues (like marriage equality or support for Planned Parenthood) are more common-- even among the students who identify as conservative; and it's also true for our Republican governor, by the way. Thus, a student who agreed with, let's say, Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin might feel it would be unpopular to say so-- although I have no evidence that anyone has been (or would be) silenced by our college's administration. Rather, sometimes people simply decide that certain "hot button" issues are just not worth arguing about-- it's called "self-censorship," and we all do it at one time or other. One other thing I've noticed: most of my students, especially the freshmen, follow whatever political beliefs they learned from their parents. Some of them will change their views as time passes, but not because I, or any other professor, tried to persuade them. Rather, they will develop their own viewpoints, some of which will mirror those of their parents and some of which will not. As I said, being exposed to a wide range of ideas and beliefs is what college is supposed to be about.
I know that nothing I say will persuade my conservative friends that I don't spend my days indoctrinating my students. Many conservatives remain certain that "liberal universities" are training the next generation of Marxists (I wonder how I got a job-- I've never been a fan of Marxism...); and they sincerely believe no self-respecting conservative is welcome on the average campus. Having seen it both ways-- campuses dominated by conservatives, and campuses dominated by liberals-- I'd like to see people from both ideologies in the classroom, and I'd like to believe that there are many campuses where diversity of viewpoints DOES occur. But then, people who get along with each other are rarely considered newsworthy, so you probably won't hear about them. It's conflict and division that sells; and so does the myth of the liberal campus, a harsh and cruel place where innocent conservatives are being persecuted every day...
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Bernie Sanders Still Gets No Respect (But He Should)
To say the least, this has been a bizarre year for politics. I mean, who would have predicted that a brash New York billionaire, who has been married three times and has a tendency to make outrageous claims and use schoolyard taunts on his opponents, would be the presumptive nominee for the Republican party? And who would have predicted that massive numbers of people (many of them young, first-time voters) in both red states and blue states would become passionate supporters of a 74-year old self-identified Democratic socialist from Vermont, best known for his thunderous oratory against corporate greed?
When the 2016 election season began, many Republicans expected former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (who had a famous name, conservative credentials, and millions of dollars in SuperPac support) to quickly become the party leader. And although some Democrats had their doubts about Hillary Clinton's electability, she too had a famous name, she had served as a senator and a Secretary of State, and few doubted that she would become her party's nominee.
Last year at this time, none of the pundits were predicting that Donald Trump would eliminate all the "establishment" candidates and win decisive victories in a majority of primary states; in fact, most of the pundits treated his candidacy as a media stunt, or even a joke. Similarly, I can't recall anyone who took Bernie Sanders seriously when he challenged Mrs. Clinton. The mainstream media had just about anointed her as the Democratic nominee, and nobody expected Senator Sanders to be around for very long; after all, who but a small bunch of old hippies would support some 74-year old guy from a small New England state who talked about a "political revolution"?
As it turned out, both Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders touched a chord with frustrated, angry, and alienated voters. Their styles were very different, and in many cases, their issues were different too; but their voters were equally certain that these two non-traditional candidates were the only ones who spoke the truth. As a result, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each had a major impact on the presidential race. Mr. Trump has now, for all intents and purposes, sewn up the Republican nomination-- much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment. Mr. Sanders, for a number of reasons (some not of his making) is far behind in pledged delegates, but he has received millions of votes, raised an amazingly large amount of money from individual donors (typical donation $27, and he refuses to have a SuperPac), and won a respectable number of states. Although Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic establishment wish he would just go away, he shows no signs of doing that. (Note to fans of Hillary: I have nothing against her. I just find the case that Bernie is making much more compelling.) Meanwhile, even in the face of long odds, Senator Sanders has vowed to fight on.
That shouldn't surprise anyone who knows him. I've followed Bernie's career for years, and he has a long record of consistently fighting for what he believes in-- for example, he has been a champion of workers' rights, and has long railed against income inequality. Contrary to claims by his opponents he's anti-business, he is not at all opposed to capitalism-- but he is opposed to corporations that treat their workers with disdain while negotiating huge bonuses for their executives; and he is opposed to corporations that manipulate the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, or park their assets in the Cayman Islands. Frankly, as someone who has worked for companies where all of us consistently produced at a high level yet we rarely got even a small raise (while the company's executives got lavish salaries and perks), I can relate to his message. And I'm not the only one.
To be honest, I never expected Bernie to get as far as he did. And much as I like him, I never really thought Bernie would be able to win the nomination. But I did expect that once he began winning some states and attracting large and enthusiastic crowds to his rallies, the mainstream media would cover his campaign more thoroughly. They never did. On a regular basis, I saw reporters and anchors either ignoring him or giving him a bare minimum of attention. I even saw anchors mocking his stump speech, or cutting him off whenever he began to talk about corporate greed. And more often than not, when anchors did interview him, it was to ask when he was getting out of the race. And yet, night after night, when it came time for Donald Trump to give a speech, the same media outlets faithfully covered his every word, even if much of what he said was also his standard stump speech (with a few insults or rude remarks thrown in from time to time), and even though he had not yet come close to winning the nomination of his party.
It's fairly obvious that the mainstream media have their favorites. Donald Trump, with skills he honed in reality TV, often provides a boost to network ratings-- or as Les Moonves, the chairman of CBS, admitted: "Donald Trump's candidacy may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." (Actual quote. Not an urban legend.) Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has inspired millions of young voters, raised issues seldom discussed by traditional politicians, and run a dynamic and exciting campaign-- but he's not telegenic in the way Mr. Trump is, and he's not a ratings machine. So he doesn't get the coverage Mr. Trump gets. In a way, that's a sad commentary... both on the state of our politics, and on the state of our media.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Why Paul LePage is Wrong about Addiction
There are times when politicians completely mystify me. I'm not naive: I've been a broadcaster and a news reporter, and I've taught Political Communication for a while, so the exaggerated claims or the promises that are impossible to keep don't shock me. I understand that during primaries especially, candidates need to say what they think their audience wants to hear. But there are certain times when politicians who are not in campaign mode make a statement that is so outrageous, or so cruel, that I have a difficult time wondering how they sleep at night.
Exhibit A is the current Republican governor of Maine, Paul LePage. Maine has tended to be a purple state: even its Republican members of congress are generally moderate. But Governor LePage seems to pride himself on being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. This is the same governor who has claimed that immigrants bring diseases to his state (not much evidence of that, by the way); who has asserted that black drug dealers come to Maine to impregnate innocent white girls and get them hooked on drugs (police statistics have noted that nearly every drug dealer arrested in Maine has been white); and who once said he would like to "tell Obama to go to hell." This seems to make him very popular with some conservatives, but I doubt that his latest action will win him much praise: he just decided to block bipartisan legislation that would provide a life-saving medication called Naloxone (better known as Narcan) to addicts who have overdosed on opioids. Narcan gives the addict a second chance at life, and that may be one good reason why legislators from both parties unanimously passed a bill to make it more readily available to pharmacists (who would now be able to dispense it without a prescription); these Maine politicians recognized, as legislators in about thirty other states did, that addicts need treatment rather than punishment.
But for Governor LePage, addicts are criminals, and that's all there is to it. Not only that, but he believes taking drugs is a choice, so those who do it must suffer the consequences. In other words, the thousands of Mainers addicted to drugs don't deserve to be helped if they overdose, since they're inevitably going to go right back and do the same thing the next time. He said as much when he vetoed the bill: “Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of Naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”
I find those comments both ill-informed and heartless. I have never done drugs, but I've lost a number of music industry colleagues to addiction; some of them were people I really liked a lot, and if there had been a medication to save their life, I would have been glad to see them get another chance. I understand that many addicts do go back to using again, and as a former counselor, I have seen how frustrating it is to try to treat people who still do not accept that they have a problem. But while I saw first-hand that many addicts were not about to quit, I also saw some who were fed up with their life and determined to make a positive change. And yes, there were success stories: several friends of mine have been clean and sober for years, and one of them even decided to get a Master's degree in counseling in order to help other addicts.
Believe me, I am not trying to minimize the problem of drug abuse in our society -- I am well aware that addicts steal, they lie, they disappoint those they love. And yes, many addicts will be back on the street using again. But as I said, there are always exceptions; there are always some who know they need to stop, some who desperately want to get clean and sober. I would hate to write off an entire group of people, since it's impossible to predict whether this time, the addict is serious about seeking treatment. Shakespeare said "the readiness is all," so perhaps this time, the person will be ready to turn his or her life around.
But not in Paul LePage's world. Governor LePage's message to addicts seems to be "you made your bed, and now you can lie in it." One wonders if he would say that to someone in his own family. One wonders if he would say that to a grieving parent whose child overdosed and was unable to get the medication that would reverse it. In many states, governors are realizing that just locking up addicts, or demonizing them, doesn't help them to change. But Governor LePage seems happy in his black and white world, where there are no shades of gray-- just good guys and bad guys; a world where people who suffer from addiction can expect neither compassion nor mercy.
Exhibit A is the current Republican governor of Maine, Paul LePage. Maine has tended to be a purple state: even its Republican members of congress are generally moderate. But Governor LePage seems to pride himself on being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. This is the same governor who has claimed that immigrants bring diseases to his state (not much evidence of that, by the way); who has asserted that black drug dealers come to Maine to impregnate innocent white girls and get them hooked on drugs (police statistics have noted that nearly every drug dealer arrested in Maine has been white); and who once said he would like to "tell Obama to go to hell." This seems to make him very popular with some conservatives, but I doubt that his latest action will win him much praise: he just decided to block bipartisan legislation that would provide a life-saving medication called Naloxone (better known as Narcan) to addicts who have overdosed on opioids. Narcan gives the addict a second chance at life, and that may be one good reason why legislators from both parties unanimously passed a bill to make it more readily available to pharmacists (who would now be able to dispense it without a prescription); these Maine politicians recognized, as legislators in about thirty other states did, that addicts need treatment rather than punishment.
But for Governor LePage, addicts are criminals, and that's all there is to it. Not only that, but he believes taking drugs is a choice, so those who do it must suffer the consequences. In other words, the thousands of Mainers addicted to drugs don't deserve to be helped if they overdose, since they're inevitably going to go right back and do the same thing the next time. He said as much when he vetoed the bill: “Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of Naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”
I find those comments both ill-informed and heartless. I have never done drugs, but I've lost a number of music industry colleagues to addiction; some of them were people I really liked a lot, and if there had been a medication to save their life, I would have been glad to see them get another chance. I understand that many addicts do go back to using again, and as a former counselor, I have seen how frustrating it is to try to treat people who still do not accept that they have a problem. But while I saw first-hand that many addicts were not about to quit, I also saw some who were fed up with their life and determined to make a positive change. And yes, there were success stories: several friends of mine have been clean and sober for years, and one of them even decided to get a Master's degree in counseling in order to help other addicts.
Believe me, I am not trying to minimize the problem of drug abuse in our society -- I am well aware that addicts steal, they lie, they disappoint those they love. And yes, many addicts will be back on the street using again. But as I said, there are always exceptions; there are always some who know they need to stop, some who desperately want to get clean and sober. I would hate to write off an entire group of people, since it's impossible to predict whether this time, the addict is serious about seeking treatment. Shakespeare said "the readiness is all," so perhaps this time, the person will be ready to turn his or her life around.
But not in Paul LePage's world. Governor LePage's message to addicts seems to be "you made your bed, and now you can lie in it." One wonders if he would say that to someone in his own family. One wonders if he would say that to a grieving parent whose child overdosed and was unable to get the medication that would reverse it. In many states, governors are realizing that just locking up addicts, or demonizing them, doesn't help them to change. But Governor LePage seems happy in his black and white world, where there are no shades of gray-- just good guys and bad guys; a world where people who suffer from addiction can expect neither compassion nor mercy.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Why Can't We Put Our Differences Aside?
Back in 1998, linguistics professor Deborah Tannen wrote a book I've always liked. It's called "The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue," and in it, she talks about how our discussions are increasingly "agonistic"-- that is, they display what Tannen calls "a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue,
and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight.'' Examples of agonism are all too prevalent in daily life, where even the simplest disagreements can escalate into the verbal equivalent of World War III. We can find plenty of agonistic behavior on cable TV and talk radio, where members from each side shout at their opponent as if the other side is utterly insane and unworthy of being heard. We can also find examples of argument culture when fans debate their favorite rock band, or when partisans debate hot button issues like abortion or immigration. Even online, it doesn't take long for what started as an exchange of viewpoints to spiral out of control and become a series of mean tweets or angry Facebook postings (I assume there are now emojis for varying levels of disgust or contempt).
The other day, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders went to Rome to speak at a conference; while by all accounts, Senator Sanders is a non-religious Jew, he has great admiration for the work of Pope Francis in speaking out about climate change and global poverty. The senator has said he disagrees with the pope on theology, but he sees the good in what the pope is trying to do as an advocate for social justice. After he gave his talk at the conference, the senator and his wife (who was raised Catholic) were able to have a brief meeting with the pope-- an exciting and unexpected event that was a high point in the visit. (While the senator has met many famous people over the years, meeting a pope is undoubtedly a unique experience, no matter what religion you might be.)
The online and cable TV criticisms began almost immediately: he was trying to distract from the fact that he is losing to Hillary Clinton; he was pandering to the Catholic vote; he praised a man who opposes marriage equality and has other controversial moral stands; he shouldn't have gone to the conference in the first place. I took a different view of it all-- and no, I am not speaking as one of Bernie's partisans. Rather, I saw what he did as typical of him-- he took the opportunity to participate in a conference on global economic issues, a subject he cares deeply about. As for his excitement at meeting the pope, I met Ronald Reagan once and while I wasn't a fan and I never voted for him, being in the same room as a sitting US President was pretty exciting, I have to admit.
More importantly, I thought there was a good lesson in what occurred: Senator Sanders has some very real disagreements with the pope, yet he also sees some important areas of agreement. Rather than being an absolutist, he focused on what was good about Pope Francis, instead of dismissing him because he can't agree with everything the man says. And I am not just singling out Senator Sanders. I know a number of good folks, some of whom are friends of mine on social media, who have very strong views on the issues, views that differ from mine; yet they are able to resist the temptation to turn every discussion into an argument. It's a trait that I admire.
Unfortunately, as I've noted in previous blogs, that trait is all too rare. But wouldn't it be a nice change of pace if we could resist the tendency to be part of the argument culture? How difficult would it be to just be happy for someone, even someone we may not always agree with, when something good happens in their life? I may not be a big fan of the pope, but I'm glad that Bernie Sanders got to meet him. I may not be a big fan of Donald Trump, but I know people who have attended an event and told me how excited they were to be there. My point is that life is short, and we seem to occupy so much of it with annoyance and frustration. I wish we could put the agonistic behavior aside even for a few minutes, and just let someone's happy moment be there, without feeling the urge to criticize it. Contrary to the combative way too many ideas are presented in the media, not everything needs to turn into an argument. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to share in the other person's happiness. There will be plenty of time for argument later on.
The other day, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders went to Rome to speak at a conference; while by all accounts, Senator Sanders is a non-religious Jew, he has great admiration for the work of Pope Francis in speaking out about climate change and global poverty. The senator has said he disagrees with the pope on theology, but he sees the good in what the pope is trying to do as an advocate for social justice. After he gave his talk at the conference, the senator and his wife (who was raised Catholic) were able to have a brief meeting with the pope-- an exciting and unexpected event that was a high point in the visit. (While the senator has met many famous people over the years, meeting a pope is undoubtedly a unique experience, no matter what religion you might be.)
The online and cable TV criticisms began almost immediately: he was trying to distract from the fact that he is losing to Hillary Clinton; he was pandering to the Catholic vote; he praised a man who opposes marriage equality and has other controversial moral stands; he shouldn't have gone to the conference in the first place. I took a different view of it all-- and no, I am not speaking as one of Bernie's partisans. Rather, I saw what he did as typical of him-- he took the opportunity to participate in a conference on global economic issues, a subject he cares deeply about. As for his excitement at meeting the pope, I met Ronald Reagan once and while I wasn't a fan and I never voted for him, being in the same room as a sitting US President was pretty exciting, I have to admit.
More importantly, I thought there was a good lesson in what occurred: Senator Sanders has some very real disagreements with the pope, yet he also sees some important areas of agreement. Rather than being an absolutist, he focused on what was good about Pope Francis, instead of dismissing him because he can't agree with everything the man says. And I am not just singling out Senator Sanders. I know a number of good folks, some of whom are friends of mine on social media, who have very strong views on the issues, views that differ from mine; yet they are able to resist the temptation to turn every discussion into an argument. It's a trait that I admire.
Unfortunately, as I've noted in previous blogs, that trait is all too rare. But wouldn't it be a nice change of pace if we could resist the tendency to be part of the argument culture? How difficult would it be to just be happy for someone, even someone we may not always agree with, when something good happens in their life? I may not be a big fan of the pope, but I'm glad that Bernie Sanders got to meet him. I may not be a big fan of Donald Trump, but I know people who have attended an event and told me how excited they were to be there. My point is that life is short, and we seem to occupy so much of it with annoyance and frustration. I wish we could put the agonistic behavior aside even for a few minutes, and just let someone's happy moment be there, without feeling the urge to criticize it. Contrary to the combative way too many ideas are presented in the media, not everything needs to turn into an argument. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to share in the other person's happiness. There will be plenty of time for argument later on.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Steve Miller Was Right
When I was a rock and roll disc jockey, I always liked the Steve Miller Band, largely due to its versatility. The band's music during the '60s and '70s ran the gamut: "Living in the USA," "Brave New World," "Going to the Country" and "Space Cowboy" were widely played by the album rock stations where I worked, while "Fly Like an Eagle" and "The Joker" were big at top-40. And then, in the early 80s, Steve reinvented himself with dance-music hits like "Abracadabra," a song that went to #1 on the pop charts. Miller also ran into radio censorship with his 1977 song "Jet Airliner"-- the original album version included one line with a certain four letter word (the one that begins with sh- and rhymes with "hit")-- but the radio version substituted the word "kicks" instead, keeping the airwaves pure for yet another day.
Given his long and productive career, I was pleased when I learned Steve Miller would be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. But then, while he was backstage, he decided to give his opinion about the Rock Hall, and some people were shocked by what he said. I was not one of them. While I understand that some of his frustration was because his band-members were not given free tickets to the ceremony and the Rock Hall used some of his work without a signed agreement giving permission, I thought the rest of his rant was totally on-point.
For example, he spoke of a flawed, unpleasant and arbitrary process, one that ignores talented and very qualified artists and provides no reason for the decisions the judges make. And while he did not elaborate on those flaws, I can totally empathize as a Rush fan. Look at how many years Rush got ignored-- excluded time and time again, while artists with fewer accomplishments were inducted. I am not taking anything away from many of the wonderful performers who did get in-- but Rush should not have been kept out for so many years.
At some point, the guys in Rush made their peace with the fact that certain of the judges (and, it was rumored, Jann Wenner himself) hated the band and refused to even consider them. It took some of the old guard retiring and/or being replaced by some newer judges before things changed and Rush finally got a fair hearing. (And trust me, many of us-- myself among them-- had tried for YEARS to get the judges to change their minds, without much success.) When Alex gave his hilarious "blah-blah-blah" speech at the award ceremony, I couldn't help but think it referred not only to inductees who gave endlessly long and boring acceptance speeches (talking to you, Quincy Jones); it referred to all the naysayers who for years had given ridiculous excuses for why Rush did not deserve to be in the Rock Hall.
And yet, even today, you and I can name plenty of bands who are still being ignored. We don't know why-- while the fans can vote, the criteria the judges use are mysterious. They seem not to like certain genres, and as Steve Miller pointed out, they also seem not to induct many female performers. And while I know his comments are being portrayed rather negatively in some publications, I'm glad he pointed out once again what I have always wondered: what is the reason why certain bands with long and impressive track records are still being ignored, year after year? I never understood why it took Rush so long to get the respect they deserved, and my hat's off to Steve Miller for asking that same question about some other very deserving bands.
Given his long and productive career, I was pleased when I learned Steve Miller would be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. But then, while he was backstage, he decided to give his opinion about the Rock Hall, and some people were shocked by what he said. I was not one of them. While I understand that some of his frustration was because his band-members were not given free tickets to the ceremony and the Rock Hall used some of his work without a signed agreement giving permission, I thought the rest of his rant was totally on-point.
For example, he spoke of a flawed, unpleasant and arbitrary process, one that ignores talented and very qualified artists and provides no reason for the decisions the judges make. And while he did not elaborate on those flaws, I can totally empathize as a Rush fan. Look at how many years Rush got ignored-- excluded time and time again, while artists with fewer accomplishments were inducted. I am not taking anything away from many of the wonderful performers who did get in-- but Rush should not have been kept out for so many years.
At some point, the guys in Rush made their peace with the fact that certain of the judges (and, it was rumored, Jann Wenner himself) hated the band and refused to even consider them. It took some of the old guard retiring and/or being replaced by some newer judges before things changed and Rush finally got a fair hearing. (And trust me, many of us-- myself among them-- had tried for YEARS to get the judges to change their minds, without much success.) When Alex gave his hilarious "blah-blah-blah" speech at the award ceremony, I couldn't help but think it referred not only to inductees who gave endlessly long and boring acceptance speeches (talking to you, Quincy Jones); it referred to all the naysayers who for years had given ridiculous excuses for why Rush did not deserve to be in the Rock Hall.
And yet, even today, you and I can name plenty of bands who are still being ignored. We don't know why-- while the fans can vote, the criteria the judges use are mysterious. They seem not to like certain genres, and as Steve Miller pointed out, they also seem not to induct many female performers. And while I know his comments are being portrayed rather negatively in some publications, I'm glad he pointed out once again what I have always wondered: what is the reason why certain bands with long and impressive track records are still being ignored, year after year? I never understood why it took Rush so long to get the respect they deserved, and my hat's off to Steve Miller for asking that same question about some other very deserving bands.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Equal Pay for Women: Still a Controversial Idea
I never realized until about 1979 that throughout my radio career, I was paid less than my male colleagues for doing the same job-- and not just paid a few dollars less, but paid substantially less. When I first started out, I didn't know that; I assumed that my low salary was because I was inexperienced. I had no way of knowing that inexperienced guys were offered a higher starting salary than I was. And then I found out.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I do recall the way it unfolded. I was a music director (and assistant program director) at a very powerful AM station, back when AM radio was still influential. I was having a casual conversation with my FM counterpart one day, and he mentioned he was asking his boss for a raise. Somehow, his weekly salary came up in conversation and I was shocked to learn he was making more than $200 a week above what I was being paid. We both had the same amount of experience (in fact, I had a little bit more), we both did the same work, our stations were both owned by the same company. And yet, he got a bigger weekly paycheck than I did. Needless to say, I was not amused.
So, I went to the station's general manager and asked why I was making less than Bob was. He looked at me as if I had said something utterly ridiculous. "But Donna," he replied, "you're making excellent money for a woman." I reminded him that I didn't get a discount on my rent for being a woman, nor a discount on any of my other bills, so why would I want a discount on my pay? He seemed unconvinced that this could be an issue. "Don't forget," he went on, "that Bob has a family to support, and you don't." And as if that weren't enough, he added, "I know your boyfriend, and he makes a good salary; so I'm sure you don't really need as much money as Bob does."
There are few things in life that render me speechless-- I am, after all, a former d.j. and an experienced public speaker; but at that point, I didn't know what to say. And when I had some conversations with other women in broadcasting, I found many had similar stories to mine. But as I said, this was back in the 1970s and 1980s. So, surely things must have dramatically improved since then, am I right? Well, as it turns out, not exactly.
As New York Times reporter Claire Cain Miller noted several weeks ago, "Women... are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers... [but] women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s." And her article was not based on opinion--she found plenty of data to support her assertions. For example, researchers who analyzed census data and wages have found a troubling phenomenon: whenever women enter a previously all-male field in increasing numbers, the pay in that field soon declines; conversely, whenever a field that had previously been dominated by women begins to admit more men, the pay goes up. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0
At times it seems to me that society still believes what women do just isn't as important (or as valuable) as what men do. There's still a perception that if a woman can do it, it can't be all that difficult. Okay fine, there are more women in science, more women in medicine, more women in law and politics than there were when I was growing up. That's a good thing. But studies suggest that even though we talk a great game of equality, women in these fields are still being paid less than the men they work alongside, even when they are keeping the same hours and doing the same jobs.
And then there's women's sports-- I've argued on social media that the way the mainstream press ignores even the best women's college teams (like the University of Connecticut's championship Lady Huskies basketball team) is unfair. True, the men play a more "in your face" kind of game, with lots of slam-dunks and trash talking; but the way the women play the game is far from dull. The best of the women's teams display an impressive level of skill and athleticism; and believe me, the Lady Huskies could give some of the men's teams a run for their money. Yet all the attention goes to the NCAA Men's Finals, and year after year, the women are treated as an afterthought.
Thus, I was not surprised when five members of the US Women's Soccer team decided to file a complaint against the US Soccer Federation, demanding equal pay with their male counterparts.
It's not a frivolous complaint: the US women, who have won more games over all, won three World Cups, and attracted huge TV ratings, are paid an average of $99,000 annually; the US men, who have repeatedly been eliminated from the World Cup, earn $263,000. The women's team received a $2 million bonus for winning the World Cup; the men's team, which made it to the round of 16 and were then eliminated, still earned a bonus of $9 million.
I don't know about you, but I find these numbers outrageous. And the fact that we are still having this conversation in 2016 is equally outrageous to me. I've heard all the reasons about why it's okay to pay women less than men under certain circumstances, but what about if the woman is doing exactly the same job (and in some cases doing it better)? Could someone please explain why giving women equal pay for equal work is still such a controversial idea?
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I do recall the way it unfolded. I was a music director (and assistant program director) at a very powerful AM station, back when AM radio was still influential. I was having a casual conversation with my FM counterpart one day, and he mentioned he was asking his boss for a raise. Somehow, his weekly salary came up in conversation and I was shocked to learn he was making more than $200 a week above what I was being paid. We both had the same amount of experience (in fact, I had a little bit more), we both did the same work, our stations were both owned by the same company. And yet, he got a bigger weekly paycheck than I did. Needless to say, I was not amused.
So, I went to the station's general manager and asked why I was making less than Bob was. He looked at me as if I had said something utterly ridiculous. "But Donna," he replied, "you're making excellent money for a woman." I reminded him that I didn't get a discount on my rent for being a woman, nor a discount on any of my other bills, so why would I want a discount on my pay? He seemed unconvinced that this could be an issue. "Don't forget," he went on, "that Bob has a family to support, and you don't." And as if that weren't enough, he added, "I know your boyfriend, and he makes a good salary; so I'm sure you don't really need as much money as Bob does."
There are few things in life that render me speechless-- I am, after all, a former d.j. and an experienced public speaker; but at that point, I didn't know what to say. And when I had some conversations with other women in broadcasting, I found many had similar stories to mine. But as I said, this was back in the 1970s and 1980s. So, surely things must have dramatically improved since then, am I right? Well, as it turns out, not exactly.
As New York Times reporter Claire Cain Miller noted several weeks ago, "Women... are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers... [but] women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s." And her article was not based on opinion--she found plenty of data to support her assertions. For example, researchers who analyzed census data and wages have found a troubling phenomenon: whenever women enter a previously all-male field in increasing numbers, the pay in that field soon declines; conversely, whenever a field that had previously been dominated by women begins to admit more men, the pay goes up. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0
At times it seems to me that society still believes what women do just isn't as important (or as valuable) as what men do. There's still a perception that if a woman can do it, it can't be all that difficult. Okay fine, there are more women in science, more women in medicine, more women in law and politics than there were when I was growing up. That's a good thing. But studies suggest that even though we talk a great game of equality, women in these fields are still being paid less than the men they work alongside, even when they are keeping the same hours and doing the same jobs.
And then there's women's sports-- I've argued on social media that the way the mainstream press ignores even the best women's college teams (like the University of Connecticut's championship Lady Huskies basketball team) is unfair. True, the men play a more "in your face" kind of game, with lots of slam-dunks and trash talking; but the way the women play the game is far from dull. The best of the women's teams display an impressive level of skill and athleticism; and believe me, the Lady Huskies could give some of the men's teams a run for their money. Yet all the attention goes to the NCAA Men's Finals, and year after year, the women are treated as an afterthought.
Thus, I was not surprised when five members of the US Women's Soccer team decided to file a complaint against the US Soccer Federation, demanding equal pay with their male counterparts.
It's not a frivolous complaint: the US women, who have won more games over all, won three World Cups, and attracted huge TV ratings, are paid an average of $99,000 annually; the US men, who have repeatedly been eliminated from the World Cup, earn $263,000. The women's team received a $2 million bonus for winning the World Cup; the men's team, which made it to the round of 16 and were then eliminated, still earned a bonus of $9 million.
I don't know about you, but I find these numbers outrageous. And the fact that we are still having this conversation in 2016 is equally outrageous to me. I've heard all the reasons about why it's okay to pay women less than men under certain circumstances, but what about if the woman is doing exactly the same job (and in some cases doing it better)? Could someone please explain why giving women equal pay for equal work is still such a controversial idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)