Opinion: Loathesome demagogues exploit Katrina’s victims

by LEN LEAR

Albert Einstein is alleged to have said that “Only two things are infinite — the universe and human stupidity ... And I’m really not entirely sure about the universe.”

You’re bound to get waterfalls of opinion after a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina, but some of the abysmal, repugnant comments made by certain prominent individuals last week about the disaster should leave no doubt that Einstein was correct. (After all, we are no Einsteins, but he was.) Idiots fill the need for commentary like flies moving into a vacuum cleaner nozzle.

For example, speaking to a crowd of several hundred people at Tinsley Temple United Methodist Church in South Philadelphia on Aug. 31, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said that the death and destruction caused by the natural disaster was punishment from God for the violence America had inflicted on Iraq.

“It is the wickedness of the people of America and the government of America that is bringing the wrath of God down,” said this always-perfectly attired hustler. “New Orleans is the first of the cities going to tumble down ... unless America changes its course.”

I was not in attendance personally (because there is no way I am going to give up watching So You Think You Can Dance to drive down to South Philly to hear this slick, self-aggrandizing demagogue), but according to the Inquirer, these mind-numbingly vile remarks were met with enthusiastic applause. Maybe the audience also believes that the moon is made of jalapeno peppers and Monterey Jack cheese.

Farrakhan made similar remarks at a luncheon hosted by District 33 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents blue-collar city workers. According to the Inquirer, in attendance were City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, a probable candidate for mayor in the next election, and Mayor Street’s son, Sharif Street. I’m curious to know if Blackwell and Street share the view that God decided to starve, torture and kill countless impoverished African Americans because of the Bush administration’s deceitful folly in Iraq. Of course a sharp hustler like Farrakhan could not actually believe such garbage coming out of his own mouth, but who knows how many astonishingly gullible Philadelphians actually do?

Just as an aside, the TV show 60 Minutes did a profile on Farrakhan a few years ago, pointing out that despite his professed love of poor blacks and hatred of whites — and especially Jews — the Nation of Islam leader lives in a million-dollar condo in Chicago, and most of his neighbors are Jewish. Ironically, it’s Farrakhan’s obscene, hate-filled, racist rhetoric that has enabled him to rub shoulders with wealthy whites.

Needless to say, other Islamic extremists have posted similar remarks on the Internet, for example, “Private Katrina has joined the global jihad ... With God’s help, oil prices will hit $100 a barrel this year.” Then again, what would you expect from people who send out children strapped with bombs to kill themselves and countless innocent people?

And it’s not just malevolent Islamic terrorists whose veins are filled with stupidity instead of blood. Repent America, the self-professed Christian ministry in Lansdowne known for its street demonstrations against homosexuality, issued a statement that Katrina was “an act of God that destroyed a wicked city” because it happened on the eve of a gay festival in New Orleans.

Michael Marcavage, leader of Repent America, wrote that “ ... We must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long.”

I’m curious to know what the poverty-stricken African American citizens of New Orleans could have done to “stop homosexuality.” Even the Bush administration, with its almost infinite resources, has not been able to accomplish that. And maybe Mr. Marcavage can enlighten us as to why God, in addition to killing old people, babies, women, etc., and making hundreds of thousands of desperately poor people homeless, also decided to destroy dozens of churches in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and their members, many of whom — I have no doubt — were devout, compassionate born-again Christians.

After all, this is the Bible Belt that was attacked. If God wanted to send a message about the wickedness of homosexuality, wouldn’t He have sent a hurricane to San Francisco or Fire Island or Greenwich Village or 13th and Locust streets? Then again, you don’t expect logic from low-life, scurrilous, loathsome rabble-rousers who give religion a really, really bad name.

Opinion: Parker the right choice

by MARC STEIR

On Sept. 13, residents of Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy will vote in a special election for state representative. While all three candidates are personal friends of mine, Cherelle Parker is, in my view, clearly the best choice.

A few years ago I started hearing about an incredibly energetic and bright young woman who worked in City Hall. When Cherelle expressed interest in running for state representative I talked to everyone I could about her and then sat and talked with her at length. I found that Cherelle shared my concern for political reform, for social justice and for serving the communities of the Northwest.

Cherelle will bring a passion for public service and for progressive public policy to her work. She already has an impressive track record as one of the leading figures in the effort to stop predatory lending and also in many efforts to bring better services and public facilities to communities in the Northwest. And, as a young woman, she has an opportunity to gain the seniority and experience to influence public policy and to bring us state support for our small businesses, schools, commercial corridors and neighborhood associations.

I just adore the Green candidate, Marlene Santoyo, with whom I have stood on many issues. But I do have some important policy disagreements with her. For example, I am concerned about her active support for the proposed Weaver’s Way boycott of Israeli produce.

And I am concerned about her candidacy because Marlene is running as a Green. As the lone Green in Harrisburg, Marlene would not have the support of the party leaders who allocate funds for local communities. Those of us in Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill would thus lose out.

A second problem is that, given our election laws, a progressive third party is as likely to undermine progressive Democrats as it is to gain power. The Democratic Party needs to be reformed. But the best path to reform is to support progressive Democratic candidates like Cherelle Parker.

Bob Rossman, the Republican candidate, is a wonderful man. If all Republicans were like Bob, this country would be a better place. But some of his stands on issues — such as his opposition to increasing the minimum wage — are too conservative for me. And, as a Republican, he would be obligated to support Sam Smith — who blocks practically every piece of progressive legislation in Harrisburg — as majority leader of the State House.

We are lucky to have three wonderful people running for office. Of them, Cherelle Parker is certainly best suited to represent us in Harrisburg.

Marc Stier is a community activist in Mt. Airy and a leader of Neighborhood Networks. This letter represents his views, and not that of Neighborhood Networks, which has not endorsed a candidate in this special election. A more detailed version of this letter can be found on his Web site, www.stier.net.

Editors note: Santoyo told the Local this week that she supports Weaver’s Way members educating themselves about the issues surrounding the proposed boycott before making any decision.

Opinion: Keep the press free

by MARY ANNA ROSS COWPER

George Parry’s article in the Aug. 25 Local was startling.

He said that the CHCA should get out of the newspaper business.

Our newspaper is absolutely essential to the members and friends of the association. It belongs to the people of the association. It was created to provide a place in which the whole community and all people who care about Chestnut Hill can be fully and accurately informed about all matters pertaining to our hometown.

It is also the place in which we can communicate with each other through our letters to the editor. We can argue, discuss, learn, grow in our opinions, express our anger and our pleasure in all things having to do with Chestnut Hill.

To change that would be a travesty.

We have a mandate in the Chestnut Hill Community Association’s Articles of Incorporation “to conduct informative and educational activities, including the operation of a newspaper … so as to keep the community informed, among other things, of religious, educational, social and political concerns in the community and by these activities … encourage participation by members of the community in the formulation of its policies with the purpose of insuring that the association’s activities will be consistent with the expressed wishes of the community, democratically arrived at.” (Italics mine.)

And the bylaws say in Article I C 3, “The Association conducts informative and educational activities including public meetings and publication of a weekly newspaper to inform the community about religious, educational, environmental, social and political concerns and other issues that affect the community.” (Italics mine.)

And, in Article I C 3a, “Publication of the Chestnut Hill Local is an integral function of the Association.”

George Parry offended me, and I expect many others, by his phrase, “in the grand tradition of the Marie Jones and John Lombardi years.” (Marie was editor of the Local from 1979 to 2000.) I had many conversations with Marie about Lombardi and she should in no way be linked with him in this way or in any other way. He [Lombardi] referred to her and Helen Moak and me as the “matriarchs” and when we wrote contesting his way of running the Local, he referred to our opinions as “Matriarchal Hooey.” They were so far apart in their approaches I cannot understand that George, with his long experience in this community, would not know this. (Please don’t think, now, that I am “attacking” you, George. I am just so surprised that anyone would say something like that about Marie. I feel it is disrespectful to her memory.)

George then adds that, “Certain board members” (who?) “are accusing the Local of unfairly criticizing and inaccurately reporting of the affairs of the CHCA. These board members (who?) complain that it is particularly galling to volunteer their services to the CHCA only to be attacked by their organization’s own newspaper.” If you are speaking for a group of people, George, why not have all of them sign your letter the way our group did when we expressed our concerns in the May 5, 2005 Local?

I am an avid reader of the Local and I have never once read an “attack” by the editor on anyone. He [editor Jim Sturdivant] has disagreed with them. He has stated things they do not agree with. He has clarified issues that sometimes I felt they had blurred. But he has been fair and accurate.

This is clearly, again, a question of freedom of speech.

The editorial that triggered all of this, “Not Political?” [Local, 8/4/05] quoted a statement that I had made at an executive committee meeting, and stated that I was right. What was said is not pertinent at the moment. But what is vitally important is that I had the right to say it. Jim had the right to say what he said. He had a right to quote me.

What the people who George is speaking for (as well as for himself) seem not to understand is that all they need to do is write back to the paper and state their views. This is the way we learn what others think and how we can find ways to compromise when we disagree. To speak of opinions expressed in the press as attacks when the language in that editorial and all of Jim’s other writings is so clear, honest, fair, intellectual and objective just seems very strange, but it is also dangerous because it threatens our right to speak out: i.e. our freedom of speech and of the press.

Marie Jones had a long spell of handling a freedom of the press issue. It was such a battle that the Philadelphia Inquirer had a picture of her on the front page of their magazine section when she won, with the headline, “Don’t Mess with Marie.” Ellen Newbold Wells, who preceded Marie, also had a similar battle many years before. It seems to come around cyclically. And it always seems to have something to do with the bylaw provision that “the editor, employed by the association, is responsible for the editorial content of the Local.”

Marie and Ellen and many others spent a huge amount of energy and time on those occasions. So, let’s not waste our time fighting with each other. Let’s not have another freedom of the press battle. Please, all of you who disagree with Jim, write to the Local, be heard, express your opinions just as I am doing now and others do every week. Don’t attack the man. Listen to him and to each other. Discuss, respond, listen and express yourself. Don’t threaten to fire the messenger.

But most of all, let’s get going on the issues facing this community. That is our job as board members and members of the association. Please stop threatening to fire the editor when you disagree with him, and to sell the Local. Wow!

I would be very pleased to have responses to this letter — preferably in the Local. And I will respond to them. This way we converse and discuss and, along the way, find we have points of agreement; or we may agree to disagree; or we may find ways to compromise and work together on the issues involved.

This is an amazing community. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep it that way and to build for the future. That’s what we need to spend our time and energy on, not fighting among ourselves and losing all that we all so dearly love here in Chestnut Hill.

Mary Anna Ross Cowper is a member of the CHCA Board of Directors.

Opinion: Wal-Mart Always Discriminates

by PEM BROWN

As fall begins, it’s time to get ready for the new school year. Of course, this means back to school shopping. For me, it used to mean a few trips to the Wal-Mart near my college. That won’t be the case this year – I’ve learned that Wal-Mart’s low costs come at too high of a price. I will no longer shop there.

Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer. It is also the largest corporation and private employer in the United States. Wal-Mart employs 1.5 million workers worldwide and over 1.1 million here in America. Because of its marketplace dominance, Wal-Mart sets the standard for wages and labor practices throughout the entire retail industry in this country. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart cares more about profits than people, as their policies reveal their anti-worker and anti-woman positions.

In 1970, the country’s largest employer was General Motors, with 350,000 workers. Overwhelmingly unionized, workers earned $17.50 an hour plus health, pension and vacation benefits with cost-of-living increases.Today, the country’s largest employer is Wal-Mart. Employees earn an average hourly wage of $8, have no defined benefit pension, and have inadequate health insurance that the majority of workers cannot afford. For instance, Wal-Mart workers in California depend upon state taxpayers for approximately $32 million in health-related services each year, because Wal-Mart’s plan is too expensive.

Due to the success of Wal-Mart’s aggressive anti-union policies, not a single Wal-Mart worker belongs to a labor union. In February 2005, the company chose to close a store in Jonquiere, Quebec, rather than allow its employees to join a union. In April 2005, a former Wal-Mart board member, Thomas M. Coughlin, alleged in an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal that he operated an illegal anti-union slush fund.

Wal-Mart associates don’t earn enough to support a family. The median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705, well above the average associate’s annual wages of $13,861. Without a collective voice, Wal-Mart employees are unable to stand up for their rights and demand better conditions.

On June 19, 2001, current and former female Wal-Mart employees filed a massive, nationwide sex discrimination lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. C 01-2252 MJJ). The suit has received class action status, making it the largest class action lawsuit ever, with over 1.6 million participants. The suit charges that Wal-Mart discriminates against its female employees in promotions, compensation and job assignments.

Wal-Mart employs fewer women in management now than its competitors did in 1975. Only a third of managers at Wal-Mart today are women, while women hold more than half of the management positions at competitors today.

Sixty five percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly workers are women, but they earn 37 cents an hour less than male hourly employees for the same work. Male management trainees make an average of $23,175 a year, compared to $22,371 for women trainees. The average male senior vice president at Wal-Mart makes $419,435 a year, while the four women senior vice presidents earn an average of $279,772. Wal-Mart’s gender inequality cannot be the model used by other employers in the United States.

Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world and the fifth-largest pharmacy chain in the U.S. It owns approximately 2,500 pharmacies. Wal-Mart decided to ban the only FDA-approved emergency contraceptive, Plan B. When taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse (or of a contraceptive failure), emergency contraception (EC) reduces the chances of the woman getting pregnant by 75 percent. Wal-Mart is the only major pharmacy to choose not to carry EC. All the other major drug store chains carry emergency contraceptives. A pharmacist’s job is to dispense medicine, not morality.

Wal-Mart has built an international retail empire by denying their workers a living wage, adequate health benefits and equal opportunities to advance. It is time that we stand up and demand that Wal-Mart change its discriminatory practices.

Pem Brown, a rising senior at Amherst, grew up in Chestnut Hill and Wyndmoor and graduated from Chestnut Hill Academy in 2002.

‘They did not attack us …’ doesn’t say enough

by Jim Foster

I would call your attention to a war situation that clearly divided this country and put a president in a position of defending his actions and directions to the press and the citizenry alike. Making a very serious war declaration on tenuous connections, little verifiable evidence and no military attack whatsoever, President Roosevelt convinced us to declare war on Germany in December 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was in no way connected to, nor has there ever been evidence of even indirect participation by, the German government or military, yet a county that had been adverse to again participating in a European conflict, made a conscious decision to take on, sooner rather than later, a military power that was no doubt the most sophisticated and advanced technologically at the time.

The parallels to the war we are currently fighting are clear. From Pat Buchanan to Cindy Sheehan, across the political spectrum, and within the media, the case is being made that it is not our fight and we cannot win it. Like World War II, what is most missing is the factual intelligence few have, and conclusions are being drawn from inaccurate superficial information or uncorroborated rumors. However, like 1941, the data and facts are there to find; connecting the dots and validating that data is the arena where both our government and our press has let us down.

President Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 promising he would never again send “our boys” to fight a European war, but once elected, sent a bill to Congress to expand the draft; it passed the House by only one vote. His Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie, apparently breaking with the isolationism in the nation and his party, did not overplay the anti-involvement message, as he probably read the tea leaves about the potential of an armed and well-equipped Third Reich reaching our shores. In fact, as we later learned, Germany was developing a long-range bomber capable of reaching New York and, as we well know, their V-2 rocket (read: missile) was maybe a year away from intercontinental capability at the rate their development was proceeding. (For those too young or uniformed, our entire missile and space program is based on the German equipment and technicians we brought here after WWII.)

They don’t wear uniforms now, but the message is even clearer than it was in the 1930s. A huge segment of the world’s society is driven to exterminate, by any means necessary, Western lifestyles and the type of participatory government we have experimented with since 1787. This is no incidental threat by a few anarchists or social revolutionaries, but a centuries-old commitment to fundamentalist bigotry that essentially has no value for individual human life; therefore they have no problem losing theirs or taking ours. Like Hitler, their leaders dare the world to strike back. To quote a Muslim cleric: “Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.”

The outrage of American citizens should not be directed at individual after-the-fact reactive measures, but at demanding our government leaders stop diverting our attention from what we knew about this mass movement that exploited every weakness built into our own system. It seems our intelligence uncovered massive amounts of data on terror networks, allowed it to fester within our own all-accommodating culture, and much worse, covered public access to the truth for some time, rationalizing they could turn it around without full disclosure. That may have been the same thinking of some world leaders in the 1930s, particularly the Europeans but also many of our own.

Those inside our government with detailed intelligence took the step with Germany and Japan, at great risk that we could stop the juggernaut before it got worse. At the same time, we helped cover the mistakes of our so-called allies who valued accommodation over preemptive action.

The parallels today should be clear, as long as we stop playing partisan games with ourselves, believing that there can be containment or appeasement of the huge radical fringe that has access to money and weapons on the world market. The just remedy would be for the world Islamic movement to purge itself and condemn radical fundamental jihad factions from the top, but that seems more unlikely as the days go by. There is no such thing as making peace and living side-by-side with those dedicated to paying back half the world for what they consider past sins and about-to-be committed future ones. Like an equipped Germany, the threat is on the move and gaining ground as recent and continuing world terror events have proven.

We lost 400,000 men fighting World War II from 1941 to 1945. One wonders how that number might have been reduced with selective strikes in 1936 or ‘37 when it became all too clear how dedicated to the cause were the perpetrators taking control by force and intimidation. The shortcoming here is that we had similar knowledge as far back as 1992-93 and our elected leaders collaborated to bury it using the executive branch, Congress and the Justice Department, rationalizing that multicultural accommodation would solve all world problems and we could make some fast money on world markets at the same time.

Lulled into complacency for 10 years, now we deal with a government that tries to take corrective action without telling us all the reasons why. Both political parties participate in this dog and pony show with the 911 Commission being their “Walt Disney Production.” Rationalizing that the attacks by individual terror cells “don’t count” as war on our society is subterfuge as the world-wide terror attacks on U. S.-related targets since 1992 are much more connected than we have been permitted to learn. The threat to our way of life and that of future generations hangs in the balance. Hopefully we will not fall victim to Santayana’s admonition: “Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”