WATCHING CHARLIE DIE

Back in January, when Charlie Sheen trashed the Eloise Suite at the Plaza Hotel in NYC, most of us shrugged it off. After all, for a couple of decades we’ve been in on Sheen’s anti-social behavior, drug addiction and penchant for hookers. Remember Heidi Fleiss? Sheen was one of her best clients. So to hear that he was in a hotel room with a porn star and behaving badly was not really news that jumped off the page. But then came February, and March. Massive cocaine parties, more hookers, police, ex-wives venting publicly about Sheen’s decline, 911 calls, rehab then no rehab – Charlie Sheen is in big trouble. We all know it, but he makes his trouble so entertaining that we forget that his life is at stake.

Talking heads on TV cable programs debated the relative danger Sheen is in. Cocaine addiction is nothing to scoff at. It is a disease that seems to never quite go away once one has it. And if the addict is outrageously wealthy like Sheen, it is one that can easily be fueled and re-fueled. Medical experts seem united in their belief that Sheen is in a state of hypomania. We non-medical types are told that hypomania is a state in which a person is overly-energetic, needs little sleep, has thoughts and expressions of grandeur and has a heightened sense of his own power and creativity. The person also seems to have racing thoughts. Understatement – have you heard Sheen’s rants? Listen:
I could use this space deriding talk show hosts like Alex Jones and Piers Morgan for their soft-peddling, fawning interviews with Sheen, but instead, it seems more relevant to talk about Sheen himself. He’s a smart guy. He understands drug addiction. He knows you do not cure an addiction by closing your eyes “I Dream of Jeannie” style and wishing it away. But he’s so deep into his self-destructive mode that it appears he is beginning to believe his own bullshit.

I like a good rant as much as the next guy – maybe more. Look at the title of my bog. But Sheen’s outbursts are particularly disturbing to me because like many others, I believe we may be watching Charlie die. That’s what addicts do. They die. And I believe he is so far into his disease that he has lost respect for his own life. Ranting about tiger blood, and being a rock star, etc., is really only fear trying to cover itself up in a nice warm blanket of invincibility. At 45, Charlie should know better, but as a 45-year-old drug addict, he has lost all perspective.

I am particularly pissed off about Sheen’s lack of regard for life, maybe because I watched my own mother die last week. I watched her struggle for air to even slightly fill her lungs. I watched her rail against impending death, flailing her arms, coughing unproductively and generally losing the last grasp on her 91-year-old life. So when I see people like Sheen so cavalier about their own lives, it does not sit well with me. And when I see millions of people buying in to his crack-addled rhetoric, I can’t help thinking it’s much like a death watch. It’s a lot like sitting around my mother’s deathbed waiting for her last breath, except Sheen makes it more entertaining. Death as entertainment. Now there’s a concept,right? Further, I’m pissed that I have more regard for Charlie Sheen’s life than he does. I look at the guy and see terminal illness, while he looks in the mirror and sees a guy who is “bi-winning.” It’s disgusting.

Oh well, stay tuned. Charlie will be right back after these messages. Or, maybe not.

AS DETROIT GOES…SO GOES THE NATION?

Amidst all the headlines about Middle Eastern countries imploding, Federal budget debates in Washington and citizen vs. Governor demonstrations in Wisconsin, here’s one you may have overlooked:

STATE ORDERS DETROIT TO CLOSE HALF ITS SCHOOLS

I had to read the headline twice just to make sure I wasn’t misreading it. It seems Detroit has a huge public school budget deficit - $327 million. State officials in Michigan, in their lofty wisdom, have determined that this deficit must be wiped out by 2014, and the way to do that is to simply close half the schools. And get this: by closing the schools, the average class size in a Detroit high school will be 60 students.
Have you ever stood in front of a classroom full of high schoolers and tried to teach something? Those 20 or 25 faces that peer back at you are generally jaded and disinterested in education. Place 60 kids in a high school classroom and a good number of them will likely disappear. Best evidence? The dropout rate tells the story. In 2008, only 52 percent of high school students graduated after four years in America’s top 50 largest cities, according to Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.

Guess which city has the highest dropout rate in the country – Detroit. The vast majority of high school dropouts in the U.S. are either black or Latino, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Detroit’s population is 81% black, according to Detroitareaconnect.com, a demographic tracking service. In 2009, the Washington Times newspaper did a story about poverty in Detroit.

Here are some of their findings: Between 2001 and 2009, the median household income in Detroit dropped 24 percent about $35,000, well below the $54,200 figure statewide. The literacy rate for adults in the city is just under 50 percent. Fifty percent of the city’s children live in poverty. The public school system received a D+ from the National Council on Teacher Quality in the group’s 2008 annual report.

So there you have it: Detroit on paper sounds much like a third world country. The city is always on the list of the 10 U.S. cities with the highest murder rates. And it is this city that the state of Michigan has decided should close half of its public schools. The other half will remain in their decaying, sub-standard facilities. Reportedly, in 2007 Detroit had 201 public schools. It now has 142. When the new cuts are made it will have 72. Oh, and worth mentioning – Detroit’s unemployment rate tends to hover around 10 percent. When the schools close, that figure is likely to spike, with hundreds of newly-unemployed teachers.

So, let’s review: Detroit is poverty stricken, racially unbalanced, inordinately illiterate, grossly under-employed and extremely dangerous. With all of that knowledge in their back pocket, the state government still decides the solution to the deficit problem in Detroit public schools is to close half the schools.
Detroit may be ground zero for the national public school crisis, but how many other cities will emulate its budget cutting, education slashing quick financial fix? Will New Orleans be next? East L.A.? Camden? Birmingham? Cleveland? South Chicago? East St. Louis? It is estimated by the American Association of School Administrators that 275,000 U.S. education jobs will be eliminated this year due to budget cuts. For each of those positions, how many students suffer dire consequences? One can only imagine the environment in a Detroit classroom where 60 students are crammed into a room meant for half that number, where lighting, textbooks, plumbing, desks and more are so old and decrepit as to inhibit the full impact of even the best teaching methods. Add to that a huge drug crisis among high school aged kids and federal budget cuts to drug education and rehab programs, and what you have is an academic Armageddon.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. is projected to spend more than $100 billion on the Afghanistan war this year. And for what? Meanwhile, public schools coast to coast are crumbling, losing teachers, over-populating classrooms and at an extreme – closing. In the near future, keep your eye on this: President Obama has proposed in his 2012 budget big increases in spending for public school education. But MN Rep. John Kline, head of the House Education and Workforce Committee told the New York times this: “Over the last 45 years we have increased our investment in education, but the return on that investment has failed to improve student achievement. Throwing more money at our nation’s broken education system ignores reality and does a disservice to students and taxpayers.” Stay tuned.

HELP--THEY'RE BEATING JOURNALISTS!

If there is one country that would seem worth visiting in the Arab world, it is Bahrain. Less restrictive than other countries in the region, Bahrain is a sophisticated, upwardly mobile culture with a thriving economy . It is, by most accounts, an enviable place to live if you are in that part of the world. That is, until this week. Following the lead of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, the citizens of Bahrain have now taken to the streets in protest of what they perceive as an oppressive government. The message is that they want democracy, a tighter focus on human rights and equal treatment under the law.

In 2004, flying back to the U.S. from Singapore, the plane stopped in Bahrain (below, left, in more peaceful times), on the way to London. Of course I had never been to that part of the world, and even now all I can say is that I was in the airport in Bahrain. But during the layover, I was astounded at the upscale quality of the airport. High end retailers lined the lower level, including a jewelry store featuring items one might find on Fifth Ave. in New York. The airport was spotless, full of nicely dressed travelers and residents and generally a surprising introduction to the Arab world. About a half hour into the four-hour layover, all of the electrical power went out in the airport. Pitch black. Scary, actually. But soon enough, from wherever, employees with flashlights and other illuminators made the place comfortable, and people were strolling the lower level with silver trays, offering tea. It was quite civilized, I must say.

While in Singapore, I met a couple from Bahrain. They were in their late 30s, very well dressed and really gregarious. We were attending some of the same functions at an international food expo, so we got to know each other. I found out from them that they loved living in their country, even though now and then little tidbits about sexism, racism and xenophobia would leak through their conversation. Upon further examination revelations came forth that if you are from Asia or Bangladesh, you probably do not want to be in Bahrain. If you are a woman, the glass ceiling is quite low. If you’re gay, well, best to keep that to yourself. (It is reported that recently about 200 gay men were arrested at a private party).

That brings us to ABC News correspondent Miguel Marquez, an openly gay reporter who was severely beaten by what he described as a group of “thugs” just as he was filing a report on the unrest in the streets of Bahrain. Listen:

Just days after CBS reporter Lara Logan was raped in Egypt, Marquez is just the latest in a string of violent attacks on western journalists. Truth be told, Marquez was probably attacked more because he is a journalist than because he is gay. But should ABC send an openly gay reporter to cover a story in a country that often imprisons or otherwise abuses gay people? Yesterday, my question was should CBS send a beautiful blonde reporter in to Egypt, where violence against women is commonplace? Last week, my question was should CBS send Katie Couric (below right), of all people, into the streets of Egypt to report from the center of the violence? I think not, but there she was.

At the risk of sounding redundant, it is time for media organizations to step back and take a hard look at who is being sent where to cover important news stories. This morning on a talk radio program, a commentator said he felt it was critical for news organizations to have “boots on the ground” in volatile countries. “Boots on the ground” is military slang. Reporters are not soldiers. They are communicators. Unless journalists are going to start “enlisting” in their profession and carrying the same arms that soldiers carry, the commentator’s remarks are unfounded and ill-conceived. We do need global reporting, even (or especially) in times of uprisings, but we also need to safeguard our journalists. From where I sit, it seems increasingly risky to be an international reporter.

MEDIA WAKEUP CALL: THE LARA LOGAN STORY

While I would like to think of what is happening in media as “growing pains,” it seems some of it is just plain foolishness. If you scroll down a bit you’ll see a piece I posted on Feb. 3 called “Are They Journalists or Warriors?” At that time it had been reported that Anderson Cooper was attacked in Egypt. My take on the whole thing was that it is insane to keep sending journalists into areas where physical danger is not just possible, but imminent. Since I wrote that just a couple of weeks ago, one Egyptian journalist was killed in the street riots, several others were injured and two Fox journalists were badly beaten. And now comes word that CBS reporter Lara Logan was brutally raped by at least 20 Egyptian men.

As the Middle East becomes increasingly violent in its attempts to redefine itself, why didn’t “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeffrey Fager step back and consider the big picture before he sent beautiful blonde Logan to Egypt? The term “beautiful blonde” is used here to emphasize how Logan’s persona was bound to be a target in a land where women are routinely abused and disrespected. It is widely known that Egypt is unwelcoming to the press, especially those who come in from the West. It is also widely known that rape is common in Egypt. Women routinely report being groped, verbally and physically harassed on the streets. Anecdotal information informs us that rape is rampant in Egypt, that even police are often the perpetrators So, let’s do the math: Logan is female, a journalist and American. Some might say that Fager should be held accountable for what happened to her. He probably will not be. After all, he was just recently elevated to the newly created post of Chairman of CBS News.

In published reports, Egypt’s Interior Ministry reports 20,000 rapes occur annually in Egypt. The Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights counters that, suggesting that if that is what the Ministry reports, we should probably multiply it by 10. This is lion’s den that Fager found acceptable to send Logan into.

Here in cushy America, we are not going to affect any change in Egypt’s misogynistic culture. That’s not the point. But perhaps we need to take a hard look at our own media culture, and decide if every story is going to be covered in the same manner. Do we send all professional journalists into a battle zone, or do we step back and consider the culture we are covering? I doubt we would send a black reporter to do an expose on the current state of the Ku Klux Klan. Lest we forget, Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl (right) was beheaded by Al-Queda in 2002. And if we do continue to send reporters into areas where they will be physically abused or worse, are they not being victimized by the corporate media entities for which they work? Corporate America is still a boy’s club. Everybody knows that. So, if a female reporter refuses an assignment to cover a story that may result in something like Logan’s experience, will she be labeled as “the girl who couldn’t handle the job?”

Bottom line: Media is now fully global and consumers expect 24/7 coverage of everything. In their efforts to accommodate the new world, media organizations need to find a balance between their own worship at the alter of the free enterprise system, and the humanity required to protect their reporters. A sea change is required right now so that what happened to Daniel Pearl and what happened to Lara Logan can never happen again.

BLOODY EGYPT

Some of the most graphic images of the Egyptian uprising were shown last night on CNN, including a police van that sped through the streets of Cairo mowing down protesters. This was followed by a firetruck that raced through allegedly killing at least one protester who could not get out of the way fast enough. Watch:

ARE THEY JOURNALISTS OR WARRIORS?

Living in New Orleans, I remember in 2005 when a number of news and weather reporters were stationed around the Gulf Coast to do remote reports about the impending storms. At the time, I wondered: Why are all of us who live in the area evacuating, but the reporters are just arriving? Who will protect them when a metal roof goes flying through the air or the wind trumps their own human strength? And I couldn’t help asking, why is it necessary for them to be put in harm’s way simply to communicate about something everyone already knew about?

Fast forward to this week: The societal unrest in Egypt reached a fever pitch, and who was right in the middle of the violent street fights? Reporters. By now, you have probably seen or heard about CNN’s Anderson Cooper being attacked, along with his film crew. And then there was the unsettling footage of Christine Amanpour being verbally harassed by demonstrators and subtly threatened. All of this was disturbing enough, but then came word that two New York Times reporters were taken into “protective custody” by the Egyptian military. This comes right on the heels of reports that a Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television reporter suffered a concussion after being beaten by demonstrators. There were reported assaults on journalists for the BBC, Danish TV2 News and Swiss television. Two Associated Press correspondents were assaulted. And what in the world was CBS thinking when they allowed Katie Couric to be on the ground in the middle of the chaos? That has never been her forte. Footage showed her being swallowed up by an angry, mostly male crowd. Watch Anderson Cooper in Cairo yesterday:

The journalist’s job is to convey information. Sometimes that means being in places they would rather not be. But sometimes the risks are unacceptable. Consider Daniel Pearl,(below, right) the Wall Street Journal South Asia bureau chief who was kidnapped and beheaded by Al-Quaida in 2002. That was to be the wakeup call for news organizations. The moment it was revealed (on video) that Pearl had been executed, media companies should have taken a giant step back and reassessed their risk/benefit ratio. They did not.

Now, it is nine years later and digital communication and online news have progressed at breakneck speed. The competition among media organizations is much more intense now than it was back then. Everyone wants to be first with breaking news, and that translates into more journalists being placed in high risk areas and dangerous situations. One is not surprised to see Christine Amanpour (below, left) on the ground in the middle of the Egyptian violence. But Katie Couric? Come on. One is not surprised to see Anderson Cooper surrounded by enraged militants as he has been so many times in his career. But now that he has experienced being punched in the head multiple times, does CNN perhaps see a reason for some guidelines related to reporting from violent locations? My guess is that nothing will change.

Not convinced? As I am writing this piece, the Washington Post just reported this:

“We have heard from multiple witnesses that Leila Fadel, our Cairo bureau chief, and Linda Davidson, a photographer, were among two dozen journalists arrested this morning by the Egyptian Interior Ministry. We understand that they are safe but in custody and we have made urgent protests to Egyptian authorities in Cairo and Washington. We've advised the state department as well.”

It is also reported the Sufian Taha, a translator working with Fadel and Davidson has been detained.

Fadel, Taha and Davidson are not human rights workers. They are not political activists. They are not soldiers. They are communicators who the Post feels confident enough in to place them in highly responsible positions. Those positions should never compromise their lives. Never.

And there’s more: Also while I am writing this blog post, it is reported that Anderson Cooper was attacked again. He tweeted: "Situation on ground in #egypt very tense. Vehicle I was in attacked. My window smashed. All ok." And yet CNN sees fit to allow him to remain in the danger zone. Unacceptable. And how interesting that a visit to CNN’s web site reveals nothing about Anderson Cooper being attacked yesterday or today. Could it be that CNN is embarrassed that is allowed one of its own to be put in harm’s way?

I see it this way: There is no nobility in deliberately placing strong, competent communicators in harm’s way. Reportage and video footage should never be life and death situations. I believe the Wall Street Journal, for example, has blood on its hands over the Pearl execution. As much as I respect Anderson Cooper’s courage, I believe CNN needs to reign him in a bit, for the sake of his life. In my gut, I just know that some years from now we are all going to look back on these pioneer days of online journalism and see how truly chaotic it was. These things have a way of balancing out over time, but right now we’re deep in the wild, wild west mode of reporting, and lives have already been sacrificed.

What will it really take for news organizations to place emphasis on the safety of reporters? If an Al-Queda operative holding Daniel Pearl’s head up for the cameras in 2002 did not cause any significant change in the industry, I am not optimistic about the near future of reporting. Once news reporting becomes as life-altering as police work or soldiering, the very essence of journalism has been sullied. I’m sorry to see it.

What If The President Could Turn The Internet OFF?

If you are like many (most?) Americans, you have been listening to news of the crisis in Egypt with one ear. It seems the more global we become, the less we pay attention to what is happening outside of the U.S. But when we heard Egypt had essentially shut down the Internet nationwide, many of us started paying attention. Shut down the Internet? Is that even possible? In a word, yes. Now, two U.S. Senators, Joe Lieberman (Ind.-CT) and Susan Collins, (R-ME) have put forth a piece of legislation that would effectively grant the President of the U.S. the right to shut down major parts of the Internet in a time of national emergency. The bill is called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. First introduced last June, it gained notoriety this week, just as Egypt shut down the Internet.

Bad timing? Uh, yeah.

Although we Americans are unlikely to go wild in the streets Egyptian style, you can expect a lot of barking back and forth about this bill. Media types, like me, will cry “First Amendment.” Others will cry “too much big government/big daddy.” Others will defend the bill as a necessary move to protect our national interests. The latter will spout off things like, “What’s more important – being able to read TMZ.com or safeguarding our national security?”

It’s that last group that seems wildly shortsighted to me. First, somebody needs to inform them that about $8 billion in electronic commerce happens every single day. And most of it has nothing to do with regular citizens buying a new blender from Macys.com. It has to do with the supply chain for major industry, internationally. Automobile manufacturers, for example, do most of their procuring and ordering of parts via the Internet. As for media, most news organizations have gone or are almost fully digital now. Even two or three years ago many companies were stubbornly hanging on to traditional formats, such as daily newspapers. But today that is not the case. Did you know that 166 newspapers have gone out of print since 2008, including big names like the Rocky Mountain Daily News and Seattle Post-Intelligencer? The Internet has enabled the 24/7 news cycle to evolve, and Americans need it.

So, how are the two Senators (below, right) justifying introducing what is becoming known as the “kill switch” bill? Here’s what Lieberman told CNN: "We need this capacity in a time of war. We need the capacity for the president to say, Internet service provider, we've got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we've got to put a patch on this part of it. The president will never take over -- the government should never take over the Internet."

Note to Senator Lieberman: First, you have not really outlined why we need this capacity in times of war. Supporters say a foreign entity could use broadband power to disable the grid that controls electrical power. I suppose it would help if we could hear about this from someone other than a Senator – someone who has expertise in this area.

"A cyber attack on America can do as much or more damage today by incapacitating our banks, our communications, our finance, our transportation, as a conventional war attack," Lieberman claims. Again, as a citizen, I need more information than a simple proclamation by a soon-to-be-retired Senator. For example, do our financial institutions not have safeguards in place that protect them – and us – against cyber attacks? If not, are there safeguards that could be put in place that would make an Internet shutdown unnecessary?

If you read the bill, and I hope you really will, here are a few things to keep in mind. The wording is vague. You will come away from the bill having read that the President would not shut down the entire Internet, but only those parts that would compromise “critical infrastructure.” But what is critical infrastructure, who will decide and how? You will also notice there is no limit to how long the Internet can be shut down. So, if the President cuts it off for 10 or 12 days, the U.S. economy is in the hole at least $100 billion. Can we really allow that? How many small businesses that rely exclusively on the Internet (such as parts suppliers to auto manufacturers) would go under in those couple of weeks? Further, no one seems to want to talk about how the stock exchange would continue to operate in the global marketplace if there is no chance of digital communication or trading.

And what about freedom of the press? The first amendment clearly states that Congress cannot enact legislation that abridges free speech or freedom of the press. In 2011, I cannot think of anything that would cancel out freedom of the press more than shutting down the Internet. How will Congress address that when debating this bill? That debate, by the way, is coming up fast. Congress is tentatively scheduled to vote on this in the summer.

The average age in the current House of Representatives is 62, and in the Senate it is 53.No offense intended and no ageist sensibilities on my part, but is this really the group of people you want to make decisions on advanced technology issues? Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is 87. Richard Luger (R-IN) is turning 80. Both Senators from Hawaii are 86. Hello? How many of these people don’t even read or write their own email, much less understand the broad implications of canceling out digital communication? Congress is aging, and it is no secret that older Americans are not among the most tech-savvy citizens.

Finally, regardless of your political leanings, do you really want one human being (the President) to have the power to decide if vital parts of the Internet should be blacked out? What if he or she has their own political agenda for doing so? What if his or her judgment is clouded by over-reactive statements from their military chiefs? Also, it would seem from reading the bill that there is no provision for judicial oversight. That means the Executive Branch has carte blanche here. What about the time-tested method of governmental checks and balances?

Too many unanswered questions, and too much potential unprecedented Presidential power, if you ask me. Okay, so nobody asked me, but I am definitely emailing my elected officials about this, and so should you. Meanwhile, you’ll have to excuse me…I have to get back to TMZ.com.

GUESS WHO'S GOING TO THE OSCARS!

It was just another day at P.S. 22 in Staten Island, NY, if there ever is ‘just another day’ at this school. This was the day the school choir would perform its annual holiday concert. If you haven’t heard of the P.S. 22 choir, you will. In fact, as a surprise, actress Ann Hathaway showed up for the concert with a big announcement. Hathaway, who is co-hosting the 83rd Annual Academy Awards this year with James Franco, actually came with an invitation. The kids in the choir, most of whom have never been on an airplane or away from their parents overnight, are invited to perform at the Oscars. Here is how it all went down:

If you want to know how a bunch of kids from an elementary school have gained this much notoriety, go to YouTube. The choir is all over YouTube, and once you start listening, it’s addictive. These kids, led by the colorful “Mr. B.,” Greg Breinberg, love their music and it seems they love their growing national popularity. For his part, Breinberg, 35, is the teacher we all wish we had had somewhere along the way. He’s funny, always upbeat, sort of an overgrown kid himself and determined the kids in his choir develop a true love of music. To make that happen, he encourages them to sing popular music. There is no way to measure how greatly Mr. B is helping these kids enhance their self esteem.

Lady Gaga sung by 10-year-olds? Yes, please. And you never know who will drop by. Gaga’s been to P.S. 22 to see the kids, as has Beyonce, Randy Jackson, Tori Amos (Mr. B’s favorite), Kylie Minogue, Ne-Yo and many others. Oprah has given them a shout out on her show, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have both featured them on their pages, and now….the Oscars. If you’re wondering why they are such a phenomenon, watch and listen to what happened when Queen Latifah and Common stopped by PS 22 during rehearsal:

"GLEE" has nothing on these kids. This is the real thing.

Congress: Killing the American Dream

How many journalists on how many talking head programs since November have asked the same question: “Okay, GOP, you say you’re going to trim the federal budget. But what exactly are you going to cut?” Today, Congress revealed its answer, and guess who emerged as the biggest losers – poor Americans. In a word, the proposal put forth by Congress today is unconscionable. There are a lot more cuts than what are listed here, and you can read all about it at your favorite news and information site, but here are a few examples of what came down from on high today:

Legal Services Corporation would be eliminated. LSC is the government’s largest provider of legal aid for the poor.

HOPE VI Program would be eliminated. This program runs the The Office of Public and Indian Housing, charged with providing decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND would be eliminated. Here is their mission statement: “The CDFI Fund's mission is to expand the capacity of financial institutions to provide credit, capital, and financial services to underserved populations and communities in the United States.”

TITLE X would be eliminated. Title X provides public funding for family planning and preventive health screening services for women and low income citizens.

THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION would be eliminated. This commission provides economic development, infrastructure assistance and job creation/training for some of the poorest American citizens.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION would be eliminated. The EDA provides jobs and job training for some of the most economically distressed areas of the U.S.

THE NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT funds programs to help communities address poverty, the environment, education, and other unmet human needs, according to its original wording. It would be elmininated.

It bears mentioning that while the proposal does cut spending on Federal offices, government travel, Congressional printing and binding, and Federal vehicles, it does not touch Congressional salaries, benefits or pensions. The current salary for members of Congress is $174,000 annually. The Speaker of the House is paid $223,500. Retirement benefits are generous, and dependent upon years of service. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median income for an American household in 2010 was $46,326.

The cuts proposed by the House of Representatives today would negatively affect tens of millions of American citizens in the areas of health care, family planning, employment, environmental issues, credit, housing, disability assistance, care for the elderly and equal access to legal assistance. If you’re a family guy who’s been out of work for a year or two, look out. If you’re a single mother trying to keep food on the table, you’re in trouble. If you’ve got kids in school in rural areas of the U.S., their education, already lacking, will not improve in the foreseeable future. If you’re on a list waiting for promised public housing, this plan will squash that dream. If you live in a high teen pregnancy rate area, expect more of your children having babies.

This is your U.S. Congress at work. Start writing those letters. Click here for the easiest way to email your representatives.

NOW PLAYING! THE VIDEO THAT KILLED A CAREER

Owen P. Honors, Jr. has caused quite a national stir, in case you haven’t heard. He is the recently dismissed commander of the USS Enterprise. Honors, who has served in the U.S. Navy since 1983, was relieved of his command because of videos like this one:

The videos in question were made a few years ago and broadcast on closed circuit television on the Enterprise. At the time, none of the people serving on the ship complained to authorities about the content, and supposedly no one in the Navy outside of the Enterprise knew about the videos. Honors was second in command, and a big question now is how it is even possible that his commanding officer, Admiral Lawrence S. Rice could not have known about this. It is also unclear how the videos surfaced years later. With scenes showing simulated masturbation, simulated eating of feces, a simulated rectal exam, anti-gay slurs and a pair of men and a pair of women showering together, it is surprising none of the 6,000 who served aboard the ship at the time came forward to complain when the videos were shown on board.

More surprising, however, is how polarizing this incident has been, nationwide. On Facebook, almost 25,000 people have joined the page titled, “Support Captain Owen Honors – USS Enterprise, (left) and most of them are outraged at his dismissal. Here is a typical comment from the page:
“Until we can remove far left loons from positions of power and send political correctness, which is nothing more than an assault on free speech in America, to the bottom of the ocean where it belongs--others will be unfairly subjected to a similar fate.
We need men like Captain Owen Honors in our military period end of ...story!”
And there are a lot of postings like this:
“To all the trolls... We don't care about you and your disgust for a situation you know NOTHING about. You've seen one side of the story. I bet if you saw all the footage, about 10% of it would be offensive... Because that's all we saw. We don't have access to the entire archive and I'm pretty sure that overall, it's very entertaining for those on board.”

The Virginian-Pilot newspaper first reported this story and has received comments like this one:
“Capt. Honors [right, in a scene from one of the videos]
was not an officer and a gentlemen in his behavior. It's one thing what you say and do in private with your peers. It's another when you are charged to be the leader and set the example for our forces. His college fraternity pranks days were over a long time ago and totally out of order for a man of his stature and position. Very poor judgment and demeaning for someone of his rank. Sad to lose the talents of this high ranking officer but it was a self inflicted wound.”

Most comments on the Facebook page from Navy personnel or even from those who served on the Enterprise under Honors are highly complimentary of him as a Naval officer. It is generally agreed he did a good job.

So, why all the fuss then? The fuss has to do with the sophomoric way Honors chose to “entertain” his crew. Yesterday, a friend of mine on Facebook who is in the military posted this:
“I don't think the rest of America can have a say in the Navy USS Enterprise videos. Let the Navy sort it out. Stop making it news. I've watched the video; it is an amazing representation of lewd military humor.”

I wrote back to him:
“The rest of the U.S. is making efforts to eliminate things like sexism and homophobia....is the Navy immune from these efforts somehow? When "humor" is used to denigrate entire segments of the Navy's population, the rest of the U.S. needs to speak up. Military organizations are not separate societies. They are part of American society.”

That is really the issue here. Do we continue to consider the military a highly separate microcosm of the larger society, or do we get real and hold military personnel accountable to the same standards as the rest of us? If Honors worked for IBM or Shell Oil and produced these videos, he would be fired so fast he would not know what hit him. If Honors worked for a university and produced these videos he would be gone so fast his head would spin. So, why is it that in the military, where discipline and order are supposed to reign supreme, it is somehow okay for a commanding officer to produce videos that are not just lewd, but insulting to entire population segments? It is not okay. It just is not.

This is not about “political correctness” or the “far left” or the “liberal media” or how tough conditions are on a ship that is out to sea for eight months at a time. This is not about whether Honors humor appealed to a lot of people on board. This is about social change. Our society is suffering the raw growing pains that accompany the climb to a more civil, humane culture. As a society, we have decided not to call each other fags and niggers. We have decided to incorporate minority populations into the mainstream majority. We are working toward respecting people for who and what they naturally are. If young men and women enter the military and see just the opposite of this, how will they possibly assimilate themselves into the larger society once they are discharged?

Honors is probably the good man that many have come forward to say he is in the past week or so. He probably did an admirable job in the service. He just did a really stupid thing, and every stupid thing has consequences. I support the Navy’s decision to relieve Honors of his command, even if they did it simply as PR move to save face with the American public. It is not business as usual in America. We are shifting, radically, and for the betterment of us all. The protracted growing pains required for the shift will be worth it in the future. We will be bigger and better. I, for one, can’t wait for that day to come.