Beating the Bushes:

While We Were Sleeping

    Thomas Jefferson is arguably the most learned, literate and quotable of all American presidents.  He is also likely to have been the last person on earth who knew virtually everything there was to know.  From architecture, structural engineering, agronomy and the law to science, Hebrew, Greek and religion [indeed, The Jefferson Bible is still in print], America's third president was a man without peer.

     Indeed, at a 1962 White House dinner which President Kennedy hosted in honor of 49 American Nobel laureates, one of the guests suggested, " . . . there must be more  intelligence gathered  under this roof tonight than  ever before." 
 
   "Yeah," Kennedy replied, "except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
   
   Jefferson also kept up a lively correspondence with literally thousands of people from around the world.  One of his favorite "pen pals " was the Dutch statesman G[isjbert] K[arel] graaf van Hogendorp [1762-1834].  In a 1785 letter to van Hogendorp, Jefferson waxed eloquently on one of his favorite topics -- the importance of a free, unfettered press:
   
   "[A despotic government] always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters [sic] who, without any regard to truth  or what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers.   This suffices with the masses of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."   
   
   Jefferson's most famous quote on the subject was encapsulated in a mere thirty words:
 
    "Were if left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

  I have not a scintilla of doubt that were he alive today, the "Sage of Monticello" would be leading the charge against Federal Communication Commission Chair Kevin J. Martin's attempt to further consolidate American media ownership into the hands of fewer and fewer giant corporations. Jefferson would be everywhere -- on editorial pages, the Internet, television and radio -- warning and railing against what Mr. Martin has been cooking up while we, the American public have been sleeping.

   What are we talking about? 

   FCC Chair Martin has proposed to, "Do away with media ownership rules that bar companies from owning both newspaper and a television or radio station at the same time."   In 2003, Martin, a former member of the Bush-Cheney transition team and general counsel for their 2000 campaign, tried to do the same thing; his effort was overturned in the landmark Prometheus v. FCC decision. In its ruling, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to throw out the FCC's attempt to raise the limits of cross-ownership of media.   The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal; the FCC was ordered to "reconfigure how it justifies raising ownership limits."

    So what's the problem?

    Well, in brief, the problem is that in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled a majority of U.S. media -- that is, newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio stations, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.  By 2004, the last year for which accurate information is available, the number had shrunk to but 5 . . . count 'em, 5 corporations.  For those who are interested, these unholy 5 are: Time Warner, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmenn of Germany, and Viacom [formally CBS]. General Electric's NBC is a close 6th. 

   Commissioner Martin's proposal -- which will go into effect on December 11 unless we raise the roof beams of dissent -- would not only increase multi-national corporate control over much of what is seen and heard, but also contribute to the stifling of alternate opinion and free speech. 

    In other words, more and more happy-talk "news stories" about Paris, Brittany and O.J., and less and less about the vital issues of the day. In other words, more and more uncritical, unvetted White House handouts on "all the success we're making in Iraq" and the absolute need to make tax cuts permanent, and less and less hard-hitting, critical news. 

    According to the way things are supposed to work, the FCC must hold public hearings before a proposal of this magnitude can take effect.  And while it must be said that Commissioner Martin has abided by the letter of the law, he has given an enormous, cynical raspberry to its very spirit.

   Case in point, Seattle, November 9, 2007.  On that day, with an absolute bare minimum of advance legal notice, Martin and his fellow FCC commissioners held a public hearing in Seattle.  The presumption was that they were there to hear and receive citizen input.   More than a thousand people showed up at the hearing, the vast majority of whom were solidly against consolidation.  Martin, to the shock of two of the commissioners -- Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein -- turned a deaf ear to the thousand protesting voices, and announced the next day that he was going ahead with his dangerous plan.

    What ever happened to "We the People?"

    Martin's proposal, which, as mentioned above, is scheduled to take effect on December 11, is but one more instance of the selling -- indeed, the raping -- of America.  This dastardly plan has been orchestrated while we, the American public has seemingly been asleep.  The Martin/Bush/Cheney plan is but another in a series of "early Christmas gifts" to corporate America. Given an unfettered hand, the administration will privatize as much of America as possible, thus leaving we, the great American public, to be washed, folded, reamed, steamed and dry-cleaned by an oligarchy that prays at the divine altar of greed.

   But wait, there is more!

   Even as I write this piece, the FCC is meeting to vote on whether it will consider applying "broad regulations" to a cable television industry that has been largely unregulated at the federal level for more than 20 years.  It should come as no surprise that Martin's latest proposal has provoked furious opposition from the cable industry.  On the surface, Martin's reasoning is sound: by regulating the industry, consumers will eventually benefit through lower monthly rates.  Just beneath the surface, however, lurks Martin's real interest: forcing cable outlets to remove "immoral" programs; to sanitize and homogenize what is available.

   I don't get it.  This is an administration that continually rails against federal involvement in everything from health care to curbing greenhouse gases, while at the time pushing for greater federal involvement in what we watch, who we marry, and what say we have in our personal lives. 

    So what can we do?

    Three weeks ago, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and 10 co-sponsors [including Democratic presidential candidates Biden, Clinton, Dodd and  Obama, and Republican senators Lott and Snowe] put Senate bill 2332 into the hopper.  This measure seeks to head off the FCC's consolidation plans by promoting "transparency in the adoption of new media ownership rules by the FCC, and to establish an independent panel to make recommendations on how to increase the representation of women and minorities in broadcast media ownership." As of today -- November 27, 2007 -- it is sitting in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, chaired by Senator Daniel Inouye [D-HI].  And there it will languish, unless we do something about it.

   Anyone who wishes to have a say about precisely who owns this nation's media, can sign a petition by logging on to

www.usalone.com/stop_media_consolidation.php 

      One can also send letters to local papers and representatives in Congress.  I sent a letter just last week to Florida Senator Bill Nelson, and today received a note from him saying that he has become a co-sponsor of Senator Dorgan's bill.

     This is simply too important an issue to let slip by while we are sleeping.

     We will close with a last thought from Jefferson -- this from a letter he wrote to Lafayette in 1823:

     "The only security of all is a free press.  [When it] is completely silenced . . . all means of a general effort [are] taken away.  The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." 

 

© 2007 Kurt F. Stone 

 

 

      

 

Thankful Giving

   Once upon a time, the story of the first Thanksgiving was known to every American schoolchild.  The names "Plymouth" and "Squanto" were a part of the fall vocabulary.  Every child learned about the first settlers at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, and how Squanto, the native American and former British slave taught them how to catch eel and grow corn.  Every child knew that without Squanto, these earliest of American settlers would likely have perished.
   
   In 1621, these brave settlers, setting apart their first harvest, held an autumn celebration of food, feasting and praising God.  The governor of Plymouth invited Grand Sachem Massasoit and the Wampanoag Indians to join them in the feast.  The settlers fed and entertained their guests for three days, at which point some of the natives went into the forest, killed 5 deer, and gave them to the governor as a gift. 
 
   The first Thanksgiving.
 
   Oh how times have changed!
 
   For most contemporary schoolchildren -- and their parents -- Thanksgiving is merely the beginning of a four-day weekend; a time given to eating everything in sight, watching football on the telly, and getting an  early start on holiday shopping.

   What ever happened to the true spirit of Thanksgiving?

   Every president since George Washington has issued a Thanksgiving proclamation.  In recent decades, it has become the custom for the president to "pardon" a turkey during the proclamation ceremony, and then make a few remarks that no one will every read, hear or remember.

   Isn't there something more to Thanksgiving than turkey, yams and the Detroit Lions?

   In what I understand to be the true spirit of Thanksgiving, permit me to make a couple of suggestions and observations for how we can make our holiday gather a bit more in keeping with the true historic spirit of the day:

   For the past fifteen or twenty years, whenever our family gathers at my the home of cousins Linda and Jerry, we go around the table -- before the meal is served -- and one by one, talk about precisely what we are thankful for. Frequently, we have to go back to someone who has already spoken, for they have another item or two for which to give thanks.  It doesn't take much time, but definitely highlights and underscores the true meaning of the day.

   This year, we will institute a new tradition: "Thankful Giving."  Just before desert, we will "pass the plate."  Each of the assembled family members will put whatever cash or coins they wish onto the plate.  Then, Linda and Jerry will put take the proceeds, write out a check, and donate the money in the names of those assembled to a food bank.  Its easy, its simple, and can mean so much to those who have to face another day or week without adequate nourishment.

   I cannot take credit for "Thankful Giving."  It was the brainchild of Marsha Hunt, an actress from Hollywood's "Gold Age" ["Pride and Prejudice," "Blossoms in the Dust," "The Valley of Decision"], and the longtime honorary mayor of my hometown, Sherman Oaks.  Marsha, who just turned 90 last month, has a long, long record of service to humanity.  A prominent member of the notorious Hollywood "Blacklist," Marsha has spent a lifetime seeking to alleviate suffering in the world. 

   In the late 1960s, Senator George McGovern asked Marsha to sit on the board of his "American Freedom From Hunger" organization.  While on the board, she helped to organize the very first "walk-a-thon" in this country.   In the 1970s, she approached Hubert Humphrey with the idea that would eventually become "Thankful Giving."  Humphrey was all for the idea, and asked Marsha to write it up as a piece of legislation.  Seven years later, the bill passed unanimously through both the House and Senate.  And although President Jimmy Carter mentioned "Thankful Giving" in his 1978 Thanksgiving Proclamation, the program was never instituted due to lack of funds.

   Undaunted, the irrepressible Ms. Hunt continued to spread the word about this simple, but incredibly meaningful Thanksgiving gesture.  And true to her nature, she is still pushing for "Thankful Giving" to receive the funding it needs.

   So, what do you think?  Care to pass the plate and engage in an act of Thankful Giving?

   The most recent statistics show that more than 35 million people in America go hungry every week of the year.  Worldwide, the numbers are beyond the scope of belief. 

   Every community in America has a food bank.  There are also excellent food programs that give assistance to the hungry throughout the world.  I have done a bit of research and have two links to share:

www.secondharvest.org     "America's Second Harvest," in a national organization that feeds the hungry from Caribou to Carson City.  Through this easily navigable website, you can find the food bank in your community.

http://mazon.org     "Mazon: The Jewish Response to Hunger," is a California-based organization that feeds people regardless of faith, all over the world.  It also has perhaps the lowest overhead -- administrative costs -- of any charitable organization I have ever seen: about 4%.  You can mail your "Thankful Giving" contribution to:

                                         Mazon

                                         1990 South Bundy Dr. Suite 260

                                          Los Angeles, CA 90025

   I hope you will want to do your part to help alleviate a little hunger on this planet of ours.   It is in the very best spirit of our national holiday, our day for giving thanks.

   Here's wishing you and yours a joyous Thanksgiving filled with Thankful Giving . . .

   Kurt F. Stone

 

©2007 Kurt F. Stone

                                                    

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach: Why Is There A Question?

   Its really not an easy time to be living in South Florida.  Oh the weather has become a few degrees cooler and we will likely get through the hurricane season unharmed, but that's not what's making life difficult.  So what are the problems?  Well,

• The Dolphins are the only team in the NFL without a victory.
• The Heat, despite the return of Dwyane Wade, is a creaking disgrace.
• The Hurricanes, playing their final game at the Orange Bowl were trounced by number 23 Virginia 48-0.
• The Marlins are about to get rid of third baseman Miguel Cabrera, their only certifiable "superstar."
• The State Legislature hasn't the slightest idea of what to do about sky-rocketing property taxes.
• And, to make matters even worse, local Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has come out against the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

   This last issue really grates, because, in my humble estimation, there has never been a constitutional officer more deserving of impeachment -- not to mention conviction -- than Vice President Cheney.    Ever since April 24, 2007, the day Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich first offered up H. Res 333 the resolution of impeachment [ //kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf ], most House and Senate Democrats have been running for cover like scalded cats.  Like Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz [whom I have interviewed, personally like and admire], the profound lack of spine being shown by her fellow Democrats has been both overwhelming and stupefying.

   As I write this article H. Res 333 has, in addition to Mr. Kucinich, 22 co-sponsors, six of whom currently sit on the House Judiciary Committee. After last week's vote against tabling [which garnered the overwhelming  support of House Republicans], the issue was referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, chaired by New York Representative Jerrold Nadler.  It should be noted that of the resolution's 22 co-sponsors, only one -- Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota's Fifth District -- sits on that subcommittee.  And few are going to listen to Ellison because:

1. He is a freshman, and
2. He is a Muslim.

   

And there, in subcommittee, is where H. Res 333 is likely to remain.

   To my mind, the question should not be whether impeachment proceedings against Mr. Cheney are proper; rather, its simply "what's the holdup . . . what's the downside? 

    To listen to the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Ms. Wasserman Schultz [among others], there are a host of "good reasons" why impeachment should not be "on the table":

• Nancy Pelosi: "It is a waste of time.  Wouldn't they [i.e. Republicans] just love it, if we came in and our record  as Democrats . . . is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney?  This election is about them.  This is a referendum about them.  Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."
• Steny Hoyer: "The Speaker and I have both said impeachment, either of the president or the vice president, is not on our agenda . . . .This would take us months. [The Judiciary Committee already has] "a busy agenda."
• Harry Reid: "I respectfully suggest to anyone that suggests impeachment, that it's a very foolish idea."
• Wasserman-Schultz: "[The people of America] did not ask us to spend any time on the impeachment of the Vice President.  [A successful impeachment would] "squander the opportunity to move this country in a new direction . . . it would play directly into the Republican hands."

   To my way of thinking, this last comment by Ms. Wasserman Schultz -- about fear of playing directly into the hands of the Republicans -- is what most bothers all those House Democrats who won't get behind Mr. Kucinich's resolution. 
   
    Fear indeed!
    
    In an ideal world, the job of our elected officials would be to listen to -- and then act upon -- the wishes of their constituents.  In an idea world, we would not have a vice president who:

1. Manipulated intelligence to get us into Iraq.
2. Manipulated intelligence on the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship.
3. Openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran.

   In an ideal world, our elected officials would never place fear of what the opposition might say about them over the primacy of our Constitution.   But this is obviously not an ideal world, and that is why so many fear being tarred with the brush of defeatism, treachery or even worse -- of being in favor of peace.

   Speaker Pelosi's claim that impeachment proceedings would divert Democrats from their "great agenda" is disingenuous.  She knows full well that whatever meaningful, progressive legislation may pass the House and/or Senate is likely to be vetoed by President Bush.  And need she be reminded that the odds of overriding a presidential veto are roughly the same as the Dolphins winning all of their remaining games? 

   In poll after poll, Vice President Cheney's popularity ratings are hovering in the mid-teens.  That is to say, less than two in ten Americans have a favorable view.  More importantly, in recent polling, more than four in ten Americans favor impeaching the man nicknamed "Darth "Vader." 

   Again, I ask: "Where is the downside?" 

   Hiding in fear, cowering in the corner is not the answer.  The American public is totally fed up with this administration.  Who but the most ardent fan of Sean Hannity or Michael Savage does not know that Cheney lied us into Iraq, lied about the link between Sadaam and bin Laden and is now setting his sights on Iran?  Who truly believes that initiating mammoth tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy at a time of war makes good economic sense?  Who is willing to cough up another two or three trillion dollars for a war in which the term "victory" has no definable meaning? 

   Dear old dad used to say, "Let them call you pisher . . . that doesn't make you one."  Let Republicans call Democrats every name in the book; they are operating under the delusion that a majority of the American public believes anything they say.  Let the Democrats come out of their hiding places and begin standing up to the Vice President and for the Constitution.  Get on with the hearings, and let the chips fall where they may.  We just may wake up one morning and discover that the Democrats have finally located their spines and impeached the most despised, most malevolent executive officer this country has ever known.

   If nothing else, it sure will take the sting out of having to wait for another losing season here in South Florida.

©2007 Kurt F. Stone

   

God, Guns, Gays . . . AND Giuliani?

       This week, the Reverend Pat Robertson announced his endorsement of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for president.  In speaking to the press, Robertson termed Giuliani "More than acceptable to people of faith."

    Let's see if we've got this straight:

• The Reverend Robertson once proclaimed that the 9/11 attacks were God's judgment against America for its permissive attitude towards  homosexuality and abortion.

• Mayor Giuliani is Pro-Choice, supports Gay Rights, and has made a few appearances in drag.

• The Reverend Robertson once sued Mayor Giuliani over New York's recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships.

• The Reverend Robertson has made a career out of bemoaning the decline of the nuclear family, the rise of divorce and the alarming growth of hedonism in American society.  During his 1986 presidential bid, he was quoted as saying, "Our motion pictures, our television, our radio, our youth concerts . . . seem to have a single message: God is out, casual sex, infidelity, and easy divorce [are in]."

• Mayor Giuliani has been married thrice, divorced twice [he announced the second one at a press conference], and has cut off all contact with his children. 

• The Reverend Robertson has long assailed the lack of ethics and integrity among American politicians.

• Mayor Giuliani's former Police Commissioner [and business associate] Bernard Kerik, has just been indicted on a host of federal charges including mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, making false statements on a bank application, making false statements for a U.S. government position and "theft of honest services."

• The Reverend Robertson has long railed against the alarming rise in drug use.  During his ill-fated run for the presidency some years back, he said, "Illegal drugs are being sold to fourth grade children.  Half of our schoolchildren have tried marijuana.  We are under assault by a tidal wave of drugs."

• Mayor Giuliani's South Carolina campaign chair, Thomas Ravenel, is currently under federal indictment for the purchase -- and possible distribution of -- cocaine.  If found guilty, Mr. Ravenel faces up to twenty years in prison.

     Got all that?

     So precisely what is it that Pat Robertson sees in Rudy Giuliani?  That he is not Mitt Romney, who, by the way, tried like the dickens to get Robertson's imprimatur?  That Mayor Guiliani is not Senator John McCain, who once referred to Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance?"  That he is not former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who probably hasn't a snowball's chance in Hades of capturing the nomination?

       The answer likely resides not so much in the realm of the spirit as in the hurly-burly of politics. Reverend Robertson no doubt believes that Mayor Giuliani represents the Republican's single best chance for defeating Senator Hillary Clinton.  In an oblique sense, Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is also a backhanded endorsement of the senator.  If this comes across as a tortured piece of logic, so be it.  It is however, no more logically skewed than someone backing a candidate who endorses the very evils -- i.e. abortion rights and gay rights -- he claims were the cause of the worst domestic horror in American history.  Ah me, bedfellows make strange politicians.

     Seen from the perspective of ego-driven, bare-knuckle politics, the Robertson-Giuliani pact makes little sense.  In fact, it is a coalition that both may come to rue in the weeks and months ahead.  For Robertson, who has been steadily losing "audience share" on his nationally-broadcast "700 Club," it could mean a further loss of primacy with the Christian Right.  For Mayor Giuliani it could also spell a loss; among 1,000 recently polled Republican voters, respondents split almost evenly on the question of whether they were more or less likely to vote for a candidate who received Robertson's endorsement.  And by a 3-to-1 ratio, current Giuliani supporters said they would view the endorsement negatively.   

     More importantly, the Robertson endorsement points out the growing fissures and rifts within the heretofore monolithic Christian Right.  In recent presidential elections, popular and powerful Christian Right leaders have tended to coalesce around a single candidate.  With but a couple of months to go before primary season heats up, there is not so much as a hint of coalescence:

• Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani.
• Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a darling of the Religious Right, has endorsed Senator John McCain.
• Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich is backing Mitt Romney.
• Christian activist Gary Bauer -- himself a former presidential aspirant -- has endorsed former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
• Baptist leader Rick Scarborough has thrown his support behind Governor Mike Huckabee.

   

Then too, there are those who insist that should the GOP wind up nominating Mayor Giuliani, they will go about searching for a third-party candidate who "correctly espouses" their social and cultural agenda.
   

    Any way you view it, the Robertson-Giuliani alliance represents a potential tectonic shift in the seismic plates lying just beneath the surface of national Republican politics.

    Stay tuned, because as the old Bachman-Turner Overdrive song goes, "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet."

 

©Kurt F. Stone, 2007

Climbing the Alps Together

   Like many who spend an immense amount of time immersed in books, I am an inveterate collector and cataloger of pity quotes and maxims. Currently, I am using two of my favorites as alternating Screen Savers:

• "Learn as if you're going to live forever; live as if you're going to die tomorrow," and
• "Growing old is mandatory; growing up is purely optional."

 Truth to tell, I don't have the slightest idea who first penned these gems.  What I do know is that they are both demonstrably true.  As Adjunct Professor in three different university "Lifelong Learning" departments, I am in almost daily contact with a marvelously unique subculture:  perpetually young senior citizens.  The courses I teach -- everything from Current Events and "Great Decisions" to Biography and Foreign Cinema -- are attended by hundreds of men and women in their 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's.  That they continue to attend university classes even in their advanced years is testament to their vitality; that they have such intriguing insights and ask such searching questions is testament to their eternal youthfulness.   In my experience, they are as bright, questing and fully engaged -- perhaps even more so -- as any undergraduates I have ever known or taught.

   These "Lifelong Learners" bring with them thirsting minds, vast experience and indomitable spirits. Indeed, it is often impossible to figure out who is learning the most -- the students or their professor.  In matter of fact, the seeds for many of my Blog articles have been planted by my students through class discussions.

   I also come from a family which, fortuitously, "suffers" from" what I like to call "terminal longevity."  My father Henry enjoyed life until his latter 80s. My mother Alice, now proudly in her eighties, is just about the youngest most engaged, political savvy person I know.  She is the still the embodiment of Dylan Thomas' elder who "rage[s] against the dying of the light."  Our cousin Mitzi, a year older than Mom, is another family member who won't sit back and watch others idly bleed.

    In reality, these are the fortunate minority; folks who have the physical, financial and psychic freedom that enables them to continue living independent lives.   For far too many however, the so-called "golden years" are tarnished with poverty, loneliness, abuse and victimization. 

    According to the most recent figures, nearly 5 million senior citizens are abused in this country every single year.  Reported abuses range from assault, battery and fraud, to identity theft and even rape.  Many of these abuses occur in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and hospitals.  Even more shockingly, many of these abuses occur at home. 

   Frequently the most dangerous and demeaning abuses are perpetrated by nursing home workers who were never properly screened before being hired.  Amazingly, few states have laws on the books that mandate background checks on those who care for the elderly.  Then too, there are no federal laws that make the abuse of elderly Americans a crime.  We have laws that make animal abuse a crime; why not the abuse of our revered seniors?

    Why indeed!

    Crimes against the elderly are epidemic in America. Not only are our senior citizens being robbed, raped and ripped off; they are being ignored, humiliated and debased.  And where most people find both compassion and revulsion when our dogs, cats or horses are abused, few find the strength to do anything about crimes against the elderly.

    Its about time for a change.

    For the past five years, there have been two bills wafting through the halls of Congress that would make abuse of the elderly a Federal crime with severe federal penalties.  The Senate version is S. 1070; in the House, it is H.R. 1783.  Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch [R-UT], Blanche Lincoln [D-AK], Herb Kohl [D-WI] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], and Representatives, Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] and Peter King [R-NY], the Elder Justice Act would:

• Amend the Social Security Act to enhance the social security of the Nation by ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. . ."

   

Specifically, the Elder Justice Act would:

• Create an  Office of Elder Justice within the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services,
• Secure funding for adult protective services at the federal level,
• Create an "Elder Justice Coordinating Council" to assure cooperation  of efforts at all levels, and
• To fund and assist such entities at the state and local levels.

    

   Most importantly perhaps, the Elder Justice Act would increase the capacity of prosecutors throughout the country to bring elder abuse charges.

    Not surprisingly, both bills have the overwhelming bi-partisan support of both houses of Congress.  Not surprisingly, there are no known opponents of this legislation.  Shockingly however, neither bill has yet to make it out of committee and come to the floor for debate, much less passage.   

    The question is "why?"

    Interestingly, the answer is not what one might expect. 

    It is not that "the enactment of this legislation will cost too much."  In fact, the Elder Justice Act calls for the allocation of a mere $650 million a year for the seven years of the bill.  Currently, the federal government funds child abuse programs to the tune of $7 billion a year.

    It is not because nursing home and assisted living facility owners are balking at the added cost of screening all prospective employees.  An amendment by Senator Kohl provides that criminal background checks may be included in a facility's federal reimbursement.  Another proposal -- by Delaware Senator Joseph Biden -- would create a background check center for volunteers with a "dedicated stream of funding."

   It is not even the fact that more conservative legislators are grousing about adding "another level of needless bureaucracy."

   So what is the problem?  Who is to blame?

   The simple answer is "we are all to blame."  Specifically, members of Congress can be blamed for spending too much time in front of cameras and microphones holding forth on such "hot" topics as  as Terri Schiavo, Media Matters for America, Rush Limbaugh and Senator Hillary Clinton.

    Then too, Congress is to blame because it does not understand that those who prey on the elderly are also terrorists.

    We, the citizens are to blame for not lobbying or exerting sufficient pressure on our elected representatives.  Seniors represent one of the most powerful voting blocs in this country.  The most recent statistics show that approximately 65% of all people over the age of 60 voted in the last presidential election.   Compared to an overall national average of not more than 50%, and you have one powerful faction.

    One of the great lessons many of us learned back in the sixties was about the power and efficacy of community involvement. Many of the most epochal events of the past 40 years came about through the concerted efforts of we the people: think the end of the Vietnam War, the eighteen-year old vote, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.  In each case --and dozens of others -- change occurred because enough citizens saw that they had both a vested interest and power.

    Might I suggest that if each of us would make the adoption of the Elder Justice Act a cause for ourselves, our organizations and our communities, we could see it enacted?  Every senator and representative has an elder constituency.  Every senator and representative is painfully aware of how many votes they cast.  No senator or representative is so tone-deaf as to ignore the voice of the public.

     For anyone interested in joining this crusade, might I suggest that a good starting point would be  the "Elder Justice Coalition"  website.  You can log on at www.elderjusticecoalition.com    It is the single-best source for information and tips on how we can help to insure passage of this vital legislation.

    130 years ago, poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow noted in a letter to a friend that "To be seventy is like climbing the Alps.  You reach a snow-crowned summit, and see behind you the deep valley stretching miles and miles away, and before you other summits higher and whiter, which you may have the strength to climb, or may not.  Then you sit down and meditate and wonder which it will be."

    I may not be seventy, but I too have "meditated" and wondered, "which it will be."  And I have concluded that passage of the Elder Justice Act is essential. 

   Now.

   Let's climb the Alps together. . .

 

©2007 Kurt F. Stone