On Monday night, January 23rd, NBC will host the 18th candidate debate of this Republican primary season. It will be moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, and include panelists Adam C. Smith of the Tampa Bay Times and Beth Reinhard of National Journal.

Presumably these panelists have the journalistic skills to interrogate convincingly, even entertainingly, considering Williams’ comic flair. But while they promise to be well-prepared after ferreting through ample campaign notes and candidate bios, once all is said and done, they will still lack key elements to do the best job; key elements here being the right demographics. To put it bluntly, just like the candidates they are questioning, these panelists represent the privileged white majority.

And for this American, after all the insensitivity and prejudices these candidates have shown – that demographic – my own demographic – just doesn’t work.

Throughout much of this already tawdry campaign, these candidates have insulted each other. But no matter how many insults they land, these men of privilege are never the victims. The true victims are those Americans who are not physically onstage at debates; those fitting the demographics these candidates have belittled and assailed from the start. Blacks, lesbians, gays, immigrants and women. The poor, the hungry, the ill, the working class and the middle class are who these candidates seek to criminalize and deprive – which is why a representative panel is needed.

In last Monday’s South Carolina Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate (#16 for those who are counting), Fox News panelist Juan Williams, a black man, took what many consider a racial flogging from Newt Gingrich, which upset civil rights proponents, but thrilled the white audience in attendance. The time has come for another black panelist to step up where Juan Williams left off. Though panelists aren’t present as debaters, they’re not present as whipping “boys” either.

Egregiously, Newt Gingrich isn’t the only Republican candidate of the remaining four (Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul) who’s been racially insensitive. Ron Paul has been criticized for numerous racist statements published in his earlier newsletters, outlined here by the Christian Science Monitor.

On the stump through South Carolina, touting the praises of segregationist Strom Thurman, Rick Santorum insinuated that a President Romney would be a “paler shade” of President Obama. And in an act some perceived as condescending, Mitt Romney gave fifty dollars to an unemployed black woman at a South Carolina campaign stop.

With actions ranging from blatant disdain for black Americans to perceived condescension, all four current GOP candidates have proved themselves unacceptable as President to black Americans – nearly 13% of the population.

Black Americans aren’t the only demographic under attack by these privileged white men. Immigrants, primarily hispanics, and their American children, are being assailed as criminals or lesser Americans. Lesbian and gay citizens are being vilified for seeking full equality, including military service and the right to marry. Women are being patronized by men who claim the right to legislate women’s bodies.

After seventeen debates, all led by journalists, who for the most part don’t represent the populations at-risk if any of these four are elected, isn’t it time to have a representative panel do the grilling?

I realize that in our “democratic” electoral process candidates aren’t mandated to appear at debates, and there is no guarantee they’ll appear if asked to face a field they perceive as unfriendly. But it’s still worth a try. I also realize there is no guarantee that the more representative panel will be more capable than the less representative panel, but again, it’s worth a try.

Thus, NBC, I would like to offer substitutes for Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith and Ms. Reinhard for Monday’s Florida debate. For the sake of consistency, I’ll make them all journalists. And for greater ease, I’ll make two your own employees.

To begin with, I suggest Melissa Harris Perry, contributor to The Nation and soon to be host on MSNBC to represent the black American demographic. I suggest either of MSNBC’s hosts Rachel Maddow or Thomas Roberts to represent the gay and lesbian community. Finally I suggest Filipino born Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Jose Antonio Vargas, who’s come out publicly as a gay man who’s written extensively on HIV, and an illegal immigrant who advocates for The DREAM Act.

Vargas would make an excellent debate panelist. In fact, serendipitously, he was recently kicked out of a Mitt Romney campaign event for holding a sign that read “I Am An American W/O Papers.”

These are my choices for panelists. There are those who will counter my call for representative panelists claiming fair questioning should take place regardless of the panelists’ race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

I agree. It should. But this creates the opportunity to personalize the issues. It’s one thing to attack a group in its absence. It’s quite another to attack that same group in its presence. Believe me, I have no delusions that any of these four candidates will suddenly become humane, but at least they’ll need to change pronouns. Instead of “they,” they’ll use “you.” And in this case, the “you” sitting on the panel is more invested in the truth.

There are those who will say my suggested panelists are ideological.

Yes they are. And so are the candidates.

So why not have a REAL go at it, rather than the theatrical badminton witnessed in the last debate (#17, again for those who are counting), hosted by CNN’s John King. How can anyone forget King’s opening salvo to Gingrich – the question on ex-wife Mary Ann’s accusations of open marriage – facilely tagged with “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?”

Let’s get real. Anyone who’d seen Gingrich knew he’d salivate over that question. Red meat for the predator. King wasn’t delivering journalism. King was delivering the gripping opening scene designed to capture his audience. This was CNN theatre. And it was absurd.

I do respect Brian Williams, and while Williams, Adams and Reinhard are well-regarded, their demographic isn’t needed in this debate. What’s needed in this debate are journalists who represent the very demographics these candidates have been assailing; journalists who understand the damage these candidates are doing; journalists willing to confront these candidates about the hurt and divisiveness they are causing.

And what’s truly needed in this debate are the images of a diverse blended America – not more monochromatic mirror images of the candidates themselves.

Ever since I learned Just Imagine was the chosen theme for this year’s Tournament of Roses Parade, I kept thinking about John Lennon. For so many of us, millions, perhaps even billions worldwide, the word “imagine” evokes an instant image of the pop-culture icon. His face, his round specs and his musical masterpiece permeate our minds. The melody and lyrics are transformational:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

But for some, these lyrics seem meaningless, even absurd. Perhaps because the very same vagaries the lyrics decry are inherent to their personas. Perhaps they’re consumed by greed or owned by possessions. Perhaps they subjugate through religion or can’t bear to share. Perhaps they choose division over unity or war over peace.

That’s them. Not me.

For me and others like me, John Lennon’s Imagine imagines our world.

This year, the Just Imagine themed 123rd Rose Parade falls on Monday, January 2nd to honor an obscure 1893 tradition. Also this year, in what defines another Rose Parade tradition, in addition to the standard fare of high school and university bands, prancing horses, law enforcement groups, local government and civic organizations, the Just Imagine Rose Parade will be satiated with the ubiquitous (and seemingly mandatory) military and corporations.

The Parade’s Grand Marshal is Iraq war vet, actor and Dancing With the Stars champ JR Martinez. The Air Force’s B-2 Spirit will perform its ceremonial flyover and the Marine Corps band will entertain.

The corporations, ranging from major banks (Wells Fargo, US Bank), credit card (Discover), food (Dole), insurance (Farmers), airline (China), drug (Bayer), auto (Honda) and more, will be well represented by more than a dozen lavishly decorated floats.

Undeniably, military might and corporate cachet will be front and center in the Just Imagine Rose Parade.

But don’t despair you lovers of John Lennon. The spirit of your Imagine will not be forsaken. Immediately following the might & money march comes the occupiers’ march – the people’s march – replete with their own mighty float, Occupus, the greedy corporate octopus whose tentacles pierce homes, workplaces and pockets to terrorize victims.

The People come bearing the People’s Constitution which grants We The People our rights.

And they come with the Supreme Court’s most recent perversion of the Constitution that grants “We The Corporations” We The People’s rights.

On January 2nd, thanks to the hard work and determination of members of the Occupy Movement, in particular organizer Peter Thottam, the 123rd Rose Parade is permitting viewers to Just Imagine how spectacular our country could be if greed and war disappeared. Lets re-Imagine the missions of the Parade’s “main stage” performers:

Just Imagine that universities were free, or at minimum affordable, and that high schools and all schools were sufficiently staffed, funded and maintained to provide the best education possible.

Just Imagine that local governments had sufficient funding and compassionate un-purchased electeds who legislated to provide the best services, best infrastructure and best practices to the people.

Just Imagine that law enforcement weren’t so militarized and desensitized. Just Imagine they stopped delegitimizing dissent and criminalizing participatory democracy.

Just Imagine that Wells Fargo Bank and all banks stopped foreclosing on homes. Just Imagine that Wells Fargo Bank and all banks made righteous and fair financial arrangements with homeowners so they needn’t go homeless.

Just Imagine that credit card companies charged appropriate interest and stopped ambushing cardholders with inflated unreasonable fees.

Just Imagine that drug companies cared more for health and less for profit.

Just Imagine that recycled plastic bags like those comprising Occupus weren’t strangling our planet and that the vibrant flowers adorning the floats replaced their strangulation with oxygenation.

Just Imagine that Rose Parade Grand Marshal JR Martinez (who was wounded in war), joins with Occupy The Rose Parade’s Cindy Sheehan (whose son was killed in war), at Pasadena City Hall for the Occupy post parade press conference and concert. Just Imagine that together they call for an end to war and an end to the military industrial complex. Just Imagine that JR’s future child and Cindy grandchildren – let’s make that ALL children – never face the prospect of fighting in war.

I understand these imaginings are ambitious. Some will say unattainable. But they’re goals. Necessary goals.

Across this nation growing numbers of people are coming together with these same goals in mind. They’re occupying banks, foreclosed homes, universities, courts, offices of electeds, corporate headquarters, public squares and even globally televised parades. They’re working to level the playing field. It’s not about politics. It’s about fairness.

Perhaps you might join them…

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

Just Imagine a happy, peaceful (and equitable) new year!

As the Occupy Wall Street movement pushes forward, evolving daily in mission and meaning, its cinematic companion has arrived on the scene. Heist: Who Stole The American Dream? is the latest socially and politically relevant documentary executive produced by Earl Katz, President of Public Interest Pictures. Heist will soon premiere as the fundamental primer on the historical and present-day inequities which gave rise to the Occupy Movement. From its 1930s depiction of Depression Era breadlines to Wisconsin Governor Walker’s current assault on Collective Bargaining, Heist tells the story of America in decline due to the excessive greed of corporate executives and politicians bent on destroying the middle class.

From beginning to end, producers/directors Donald Goldmacher and Frances Causey focus on explaining how powerful special interests have worked feverishly since the implementation of Roosevelt’s New Deal to derail the protections and rights afforded workers. Via the steady voice of narrator Thom Hartmann and the astute observations of featured experts including Media Matters for America’s David Brock, American Airlines former President and Chair Robert Crandall, Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston, Rebuild the Dream’s Van Jones, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and more, Heist meticulously details the myriad assaults perpetrated on America’s workers. It is a crash course told in accessible language on the manner in which media, economics and politics have been used by the ruling “one percent” to oppress and devalue the more vulnerable “ninety-nine”. Indeed, after just one screening of Heist, 99% of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum should be pushed into action to wrestle their rights and democracy away from those who have collectively robbed them.

Goldmacher and Causey are obvious in their efforts to mobilize the audience to action. Heist isn’t merely a recounting of history and atrocity. It’s a call to action to rise up against those who’ve used deregulation, like the repeal of Glass-Steagall and rollbacks on protections, to victimize the masses. It sounds the alarm on the need to restore the Fairness Doctrine, repealed by Ronald Reagan, which led to the current spate of airwave liars and hatemongers. Heist moves us to want to end the media consolidation that allows for predators like Comcast and Rupert Murdoch to monopolize markets, control news and distort truth. It pushes us to safeguard and strengthen unions and workers’ rights as Koch funded Governors like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Ohio’s John Kasich work to systematically dismantle them. It enrages us as we watch a panel of Human Resources professionals provide training on bypassing American workers in favor of lower wage foreign workers. It enrages us even further when Bill Gates testifies unopposed before Congress on the merits of H1B legislation to import foreign workers under the guise that not enough American workers have the skill to do the jobs.

The film pointedly asks “Who will control the future of the USA? Organized money or organized people?” The filmmakers are pushing for an organized people’s movement to reclaim government control. They tell us “if we work together we can create a national strategy to revive our democracy and save our economy.” And they tell us “the next steps are up to us.”

Now in the final stages of production, as the filmmakers proceed with the arduous but necessary fundraising to bring the film to completion, they have devised a generous plan to offer the film to activists, and they’re enthusiastically spreading the word. This past Sunday Executive Producer Earl Katz talked up the film and the activist plan at the innaugural Los Angeles Green Festival. The filmmakers’ plan is to provide a twenty or thirty minute motivational version of the film to activists at no charge.

A week earlier, Earl shared with me his rationale for distributing the activist short, along with his personal angst over the corporate abuse of our nation:

“I hope that our film enables and organizes and brings independents and the middle class and tea party people into the Occupy Wall Street movement. We are taught historically the United States economy is predicated on consumer spending. 70% of our economy is driven on consumer spending but the corporations don’t do that anymore. They don’t believe it anymore. They don’t have to do it. They don’t need consumer spending in the United States anymore because they now have over 600 million middle class in China and India and more in other exploding third world countries so they don’t have to sell to us anymore. We are not needed. They want to make us expendible. Well it’s our country. And these multinational corporations do not have any allegiance to our country – none whatsoever. They have allegiance to their bottom line. Period.”

On November 5th, director Donald Goldmacher will screen Heist at a teach-in at Occupy Los Angeles.

In an hour plus time, Occupiers will witness in cinematic form the clear articulation of the Occupy Movement where the ills of American society are made irrevocably clear and the corporate and political monsters are indisputably revealed.

For those in America still asking what fueled the Occupy Movement and what wrongs it wants to right – well, those questions are easily answered once you’ve seen the movie Heist.

When will we change the course of corporate media? When will sane Americans take media to task? Can’t we end this media madness before the fabric of our society irreversibly tears?

Across America people suffer end-of-life illness. They agonize in pain. They agonize in fear. They’re in drug induced stupors. Modest people soil themselves in front of friends and family. They avert their eyes in shame. They lose and regain consciousness. They welcome the unconscious moments that shield them from feelings of helplessness and burdening those they love.

This is no way to live. This is no way to die.

Throughout the recent debate on the health care bill, the media – in particular cable TV and talk radio – inflamed the rhetoric on the bill; on the bill’s size, its number of pages, its fiscal impact, its social impact, excluding abortion, surviving death panels…

DEATH PANELS?!

The bill had no death panels. There was simply a plan to consult a doctor every five years for end-of-life planning. That was it. Sensitive, helpful, humane, necessary, professional end-of-life planning to comfort and protect the dying and guide their families through a difficult time.

But corporate media perverted the plan. It afforded Sarah Palin, media’s most caustic creation, round the clock amplification of her death panel misnomer. Rather than quell Palin’s toxic distortions and present the plan factually by name and content, corporate media appropriated Palin’s death panel fabrication and amplified it even more, spending weeks misrepresenting the plan and rendering it unrecognizable from its original form.

Eventually, corporate media’s constant drumming of death panel lies resulted in Section 1233 (which allowed Medicare to provide advance planning doctor visits every five years) being eliminated from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that passed in 2010.

On Christmas Day, the New York Times reported that President Obama would issue a Medicare regulation January 1st, which provides that “the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.” Sadly, but not surprisingly, corporate media didn’t hesitate to jump on this report and revive the death panel deception.

Witness CNN reporter Randi Kaye, sitting in for Anderson Cooper, ignite the death panel rhetoric between Democrat Maria Cardona and Conservative Nancy Pfotenhauer:

This is my Network moment. I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and talk radio. We-the-people deserve better.

This wretched corporate media cheered us into Iraq. It’s made downtown Manhattan the flash point for xenophobia and racism over the building of a community center intended to unify neighbors. It’s given a platform to birthers. It’s undermined global warming. It’s created the monster Sarah Palin and it craves creating more. It’s desecrating the living and it’s desecrating the dying.

Enough!!

My mother died in 1977. She had cancer. Before she died, I flew to her hospital bed in New York. When I arrived at the hospital, I ran down the hall and charged into her room. I hadn’t seen her in months. She was surrounded by family. My knees buckled the instant I saw her. A relative caught me and carried me into the hall. I shook from head to toe. My mother was a skeleton.

We took her home from the hospital. Her sister flew in to help care for her. The last months of her life were living hell. She was robbed of her dignity. She was ashamed of being helpless, of needing to be fed and bathed, of being seen naked. She couldn’t look us in the eye.

After a while, the weak pain killers the doctor prescribed couldn’t stop her pain. I drove to her doctor’s office in the snow and demanded a stronger medication. He prescribed injectable morphine. I took the prescription and had it filled. Later that day a visiting nurse came to teach me to inject my mother. We rehearsed on the skin of an orange. That night my mother cried in pain. I went to her with the syringe and told her to relax; that it would be okay. She was semi-conscious.

I filled the syringe and positioned myself to inject her. I was shaking. My tears clouded my eyes. I held the syringe to her skin and I MISSED. At that moment my mother came to. She looked at me and said, “it’s okay.” I was never able to inject her. Her suffering went on…

My family’s story is not unique. This happens every day to families across our nation. Millions have similar stories, and yet our media, our whoring media, for ad revenue and ratings, trivializes and falsifies the truth. About death. About war. About our planet. About what Americans want.

It’s time to stop this madness!

Registered Nurse Estella Chavez (Photo by Linda Milazzo)

With support from California Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield and California State Senator Fran Pavley, along with an enthusiastic nod from Governor-elect Jerry Brown and sanctioning from LA Federation of Labor, Central Labor Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, registered nurses from Riverside Community Hospital (Riverside) and West Hills Hospital (San Fernando Valley) took to the streets at 5:30AM on December 23rd to begin a five day permitted strike against the world’s largest for profit hospital chain and billion dollar felon, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).

At issue are HCA’s abandonment of negotiations with nurses’ Union SEIU 121RN and HCA’s failure to respond to the matters (listed below) that the Union contends are critical to the needs of nurses and patients:

Staffing by Acuity: Our Union is proposing language that addresses issues with the system that reviews a patient’s acuity. The sicker our patients, the fewer we should have under one RN’s care. This is needed to protect our patients, allow them to heal, get well and go home to their families.

Rest and Meals: We want to ensure that rest and meal breaks are guaranteed and enforceable by our contract. RNs work very long hours; if a nurse cannot rest and recharge, patients are at risk.

Clinical Ladder: Our Clinical Ladder proposal would encourage RNs to attain additional education and training and receive small, usually temporary pay increases for doing so. Our Clinical Ladder proposal is achievable and is a win for the hospital, patients and RNs.

Call-Off: Nurses in some areas of the hospital are reporting significant loss of pay because of call-offs. Our Union is proposing that the hospitals establish a bank of time to compensate nurses for involuntary call-off. RNs need a stable pay check just like everyone else. (Call-off refers to times nurses are sent home from their jobs when patient loads are low).

The strike is scheduled to go from December 23rd through December 27th (no strike on Christmas), beginning each day at 5:30AM at both hospital locations. By sanctioning this strike, LA Federation of Labor and Central Labor Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties authorize their affiliate members (delivery drivers, electricians, etc.) not to cross the nurses’ picket lines to do hospital business.

State Senator Pavley endorsed the nurses concerns in her letter to Edward Battista, Vice President of Human Resources at West Hills Hospital:

“The nurses who have come into my office have been concerned primarily with improvements to patient care, staffing, and pay and benefits. … I encourage West Hills Hospital & Medical Center to offer benefits that will recruit and retain the best employees and will ensure that West Hills Medical Center continues to provide quality care to our community.”

Assemblyman Blumenfield similarly endorsed the nurses concerns in his letter to Vice President Battista:

“On behalf of the Registered Nurses and the community of West Hills, I’m asking your hospital to bargain in good faith with SEIU Local 121RN; to make sure that workers are treated fairly and equitably; to insure that changes in staffing or working conditions do not put patients and caregivers at risk; and, finally, to agree on a contract with strong protections for patients and workers.”

At the West Hills strike site, two nurses, Estella Chavez who has worked at West Hills Hospital for nearly twenty years, and Elley Langsam who has worked there for thirty years, informed me that patient services, patient products and hospital effectiveness have declined radically since the hospital was purchased ten years earlier by Hospital Corporation of America. Prior to that, West Hills Hospital had been owned and operated by Humana, another for-profit mega corporation that both women praised highly.

Nurses Estella Chavez and Elley Langsam (video by Linda Milazzo)

Although Humana has been the focus of multiple lawsuits and used in Michael Moore’s film Sicko to spotlight the downside of managed care, the breadth of Humana’s settled and alleged crimes pale in comparison to the proven crimes of HCA, the mega-corporation founded by the family of former Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist. Interesting how several current and former politicians have connections in some way to HCA. Bill Frist through his vast profits from his family’s ownership, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney through his former company, Bain Capital, the current owner of HCA, Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott, who was forced to resign his post as HCA’a Chief Executive amid the scandal of the company’s Medicare fraud.

HCA ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over 600 million dollars. According to the Department of Justice, “HCA settled the largest health care fraud case in the history of the United States, netting the government a record $1.7 billion in damages.” Despite his involvement with HCA, Rick Scott was still elected Governor of Florida in November, 2010.

The nurses striking West Hills Hospital and Riverside Community Hospital this holiday season are defiant in their stance against massively wealthy HCA, which placed private security officers along the perimeter and grounds of West Hills Hospital to respond to the strikers. Nurses Chavez and Langsam shared their bemusement at the stepped up security, explaining how their requests to HCA for adequate hospital and grounds security have long gone unanswered.

I attempted to meet with West Hills Hospital’s Chief Executive Officer Beverly Gilmore, but she was unavailable for an interview. I did meet briefly in the hospital lobby with Zachary McVicker, a well dressed young man toying with his iPad, from Mustang Marketing, West Hills Hospital’s private public relations representative. McVicker shed little light on the hospital’s position on the issues or the strike, except to assure me the hospital had the situation well under control, using nurses who didn’t strike along with temporary nurses to cover for the strikers. McVicker did not know how many hospital nurses did not strike, but the striking nurses told me the non-strikers comprised about 20% of the nursing staff.

In lieu of meeting with CEO Gilmore, McVicker provided me the phone number of Dr. Lee Weiss, Medical Director of West Hills Hospital’s Emergency Department, whom he said would answer my questions. In my subsequent phone call with Dr. Weiss, the doctor stated categorically he had nothing to do with the strike and knew absolutely nothing about it. Weiss was amiable in our short talk but wanted no part of the fray. I had observed some doctors out striking with the nurses, and the nurses let me know they had many doctors’ support. It appears McVicker had placed Dr. Weiss in an uncomfortable position. So much for the contracted PR skills of Mustang Marketing.

Whatever the outcome of this strike, these nurses are standing up to their felon corporate employer and fighting valiantly for their rights and the rights of their patients. Their strike leaflet reads, “When we fight, we gain respect.” After listening to their stories and hearing their dedication to their patients and their jobs, they’ve surely gained my respect. I wish them the best in this endeavor.

Today Elizabeth Edwards was laid to rest. It’s a sad day for her family, her friends and her country. If there were ever a time in America when compassionate voices are needed, now is that time. Elizabeth had compassion for children, health care, equal rights, the poor, and ending war. In today’s America, where corporate media caters to the right, Elizabeth Edwards was that rare progressive woman who could make her voice be heard. And now that voice is gone.

In recent years, the women in America with most access to media have been shrill, crass, vindictive and right-wing. They’ve supported war. They’ve advocated violence and retribution in far away lands where people are desperate to survive. Strident voices like Ann Coulter and Liz Cheney have sullied America’s airwaves with demands for vengeance against nations, absent the most cursory lament for lost lives. They accept ‘collateral damage’ as designation for dead and shredded children. What gentility they may have doesn’t extend beyond their family and friends. They’re rabidly tribal.

In 2008, when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, stridency in America reached an all new high. Her hostile rhetoric, character assassinations, and lies, injected animus into their campaign. Palin, a venal, unworldly woman, was scooped up by corporate media and sold to America as a viable political force. Even her physical appearance, just a bit above average, was hyped as mega-beauty. Corporate media types, like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and those at Fox News, spewed nightly about Palin’s physical attributes. But for what it’s worth, Palin’s attributes seem a tad overrated. What may be a knockout in Wasilla isn’t a knockout everywhere else. She’d be a second rate standout in Los Angeles.

Palin’s entry into the lower forty-eight made her appear more like a foreigner in America and less a candidate on a campaign. Her language was bizarre for an American. She’d assign every campaign stop a certain American relevance. She’d look at each crowd and screech something like, ‘Isn’t it great to be in America?’ Then she’d dub the city or town ‘real America‘ or ‘true America‘ or ‘the best part of America‘ or ‘America’s America‘ or some such silly thing. She sounded more like a visitor to a foreign land than the candidate for its vice-president.

Since Palin’s arrival in America, other vicious and vindictive women have also arrived on her scene. Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona who fabricated beheadings in the desert, is now denying organ transplants to Arizonans. Sharron Angle, Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s neophyte Republican opponent with a penchant for guns like Mrs. Palin, declared she was “really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies” to solve Congress’ problems. A shameful example for children.

Another shameful example for children (and many adults, too), happened this week on Palin’s reality show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” when Palin used her own Second Amendment remedy to kill a caribou and butcher it for fun. This was Palin’s exhibitionist ploy to promote her womanhood to America; her womanhood being bloodlust and mutilation.

Palin, Angle and Brewer are antithetical to womanhood as I know it. Womanhood, as I know it, embodies the characteristics of Elizabeth Edwards: compassion, generosity, kindness and warmth. These right-wing women are dispassionate and cold. They’d send a family to the street in winter without shelter or food. In the case of organ transplants in Arizona, Governor Brewer has sentenced her constituents to death by cutting funds for transplantation.

As far back as the Vietnam War, which I protested vigorously, I’ve watched world leaders take their nations to war. Those leaders were almost always men, with the exception of England’s Margaret Thatcher and Israel’s Golda Meir. I’ve long believed that most women, notwithstanding Thatcher and Meir, would seek peaceful alternatives to war if given the opportunity. I’ve believed women were more compassionate and nurturing by nature, and were they the leaders in charge, they’d make our world more peaceful.

But that hypothesis crashes when considering Palin, Brewer, Angle, Liz Cheney and many other right-wing women. With them I’d presume the opposite to be true. In fact, I believe these women, in particular Palin, Brewer and Cheney, are three of the least nurturing, most cold-hearted, pernicious women I’ve seen. Their selfishness is appalling. Their refusal to provide for those in need is abhorrent. Their love of war is aberration. Their lies and distortions are sociopathic.

And these are the women who want to seek and hold public office. What a travesty should they succeed.

Elizabeth Edwards, champion of health-care-for-all, children’s issues, human rights, ending poverty, and more, was one of few progressive women with all-access to media who could make her voice heard. She fought valiantly for those who need health care while she battled for her life. Were she alive today, I have little doubt she’d still be fighting for the millions of ‘friends’ she’d never known. She was an irrepressible force for good and antithesis to the Palin cabal. Her passing leaves a void for battling issues that desperately need to be resolved.

Rest in peace, Elizabeth Edwards. You will be missed!

At a time when Israel faces near universal condemnation for the May 30th killings of eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish American aboard the Gaza bound Mavi Marmara, and worldwide rebuke for its continued blockade of Gaza and ongoing expansion into Jerusalem and the West Bank, American midterm candidates still pandered for pro-Israel money and votes during this 2010 midterm election.

Cognizant of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) financial support for American politicians who legislate on Israel’s behalf, allegiance to Israel played a role in several of this year’s races.

Some candidates employed the “you don’t support Israel enough” tack against opponents. Republican Pat Toomey, victorious in the Pennsylvania Senate race, used this tactic against his Democratic challenger, Congressman Joe Sestak.

In the three-way California Republican Senate primary between Tom Campbell, Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina, Campbell was challenged by several camps, including the Weekly Standard, on his Israel allegiance. Fiorina went on to win that primary, but lost in the general to incumbent Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer.

In California’s 36th Congressional District, a hotly fought Israel-centric primary was waged between pro-Israel incumbent and blue dog Democrat, Jane Harman, and Marcy Winograd, her progressive Democrat opponent who’s been a vocal critic of Israel’s human rights abuses. Harman and Winograd are both Jewish.

The Harman/Winograd battle reached a hyperbolic crescendo, when at Harman’s request, her longtime colleague, Henry Waxman (CA-30), powerful Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and die-hard Israel/AIPAC loyalist, sent a letter to Harman’s Jewish constituents that vilified Winograd’s criticism of Israel as “repugnant in the extreme.” Waxman’s letter caused such a stir that many issues relevant to 36th district constituents went unaddressed because of the heated focus on Israel.

Winograd ultimately lost to Harman, but not before Henry Waxman was questioned by The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim about his loyalty to America. In that conversation, Waxman declared his primary loyalty was to the United States.

In Illinois, a Republican versus Democrat smack-down for the Senate seat previously held by President Obama, was particularly raucous. Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of the 10th District of Illinois, who’d been deemed “Israel’s best friend in Congress” by the Jew, Jews, Jewish blog, loudly touted his pro-Israel credentials. In fact, the five-term Congressman, himself not Jewish, went so far as to have Kirk For Congress scrawled in Hebrew on his Senate campaign site, along with his many accomplishments on behalf of Israel. Considering that Jews in Illinois speak English and don’t live in Hebrew speaking enclaves, the use of Hebrew on candidate Kirk’s website is perhaps a bit extreme.

Kirk’s opponent, Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, who’s middle east policy supports Israeli and Palestinian equality, was harshly targeted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) for donating to the Committee For A Just Peace In Israel And Palestine; a peace and justice organization that lists the following as its mission and goals:

The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine is a diverse, community-based group dedicated to organizing local activities and educational events that advance the cause of peace and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis. We support efforts for resolution of this conflict that combine vision with pragmatism. At this point in time, we have adopted, as the most hopeful path toward evolution of a just peace, the following organizational principles:

- Support for equal rights and access to resources for all inhabitants of the region, based on principles of social, economic, environmental, and political justice.

- Support for peace and justice activities in Israel, Palestine, and the U.S.

- An end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, in accordance with international law and U.N. resolutions.

- An end to U.S. policies that sustain the occupation.

- International support for an equitable and just negotiation process.

- A resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with international law and human rights principles.

- An end to all forms of terror: state, organizational, and individual.

We welcome all who support the principles above to join us in building this important voice in our community.

Apparently NRSC objects to human rights goals that include equal peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians – a sad commentary from a historic American political organization founded in 1916, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

Republican Kirk prevailed in the end, winning President Obama’s former Senate seat in a much coveted, albeit close 48% to 46% defeat over Giannoulias.

Perhaps the most bizarre Israel-centric race of the 2010 midterm season took place between stalwart Israel supporter, seven-term Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman (CA-27), and his native-American opponent Mark Reed, a descendant of the indigenous Mohawk and Apache tribes.

Besides Illinois Senate Republican candidate Mark Kirk, California Republican and political newcomer Mark Reed, was perhaps the most rabid supporter of Israel in this 2010 election.

What makes Reed’s Israel allegiance so bizarre is the inescapable irony that Reed’s native-American ancestors had their land taken by European colonists to form the current nation of America, just as European colonists (in this case, European Jews) drove the Palestinians from their land to form the current nation of Israel.

In a July telephone interview with Reed, I questioned him about the irony of his unequivocal support for Israel in light of Israel’s ongoing colonization and oppression of Palestinians which is so similar to the colonization and oppression suffered by Reed’s own Mohawk and Apache ancestors.

Reed responded:

“As a native American I’m empathetic. But when a dominant power enters into an underdeveloped region, it must establish an economic structure to sustain itself.”

Reed must be thrilled that Israel’s present economic structure is so vibrant; significantly more so than that of the U.S. And it’s helped to remain vibrant thanks to the $3 billion it gets annually from financially strapped America. True, Americans are hurting. But thanks to Israel-supporting legislators who serve Israel in the U.S., Israel continues to thrive.

Mark Reed’s affinity is so unquestioningly for Israel that he chastises Sherman, the consummate Israel/AIPAC loyalist, for not being Israel-loyal enough. Reed admonished Sherman for not taking the Obama administration to task for what Reed believes is Obama’s disregard for Israel and its leaders.

As Reed states on his website:

Countless anti-Israeli actions have occurred during the Obama Administration, such as:

- Support for multinational resolutions to strip Israel of nuclear weapons

- Refusal to approve any major Israeli requests for U.S. weapons platforms or advanced systems.

- For the first time in recent US history, the US government actually sold weapon technology to Muslim nations before selling the technology to Israel.

- Obama’s refusal to dine with Israeli PM Netanyahu or allow any photos to be taken at the White House during their first meeting in Washington

- Obama hasn’t done enough to prevent Iran from getting its own nuclear weapon.

- Condemnation of the building of settlements in the the Jewish suburb of North Jerusalem called Ramat Shlomo

- Bowing to Muslim Leaders, sacrificing Israel relations.

These policies and others approach outright anti-semitism, earning Obama the lowest approval ratings among Democrat presidents with Jews.

Brad Sherman has not publicly condemned the Obama Administration for these actions.

If elected, Mark Reed will stand up, and condemn the Obama Administration’s anti-Israel actions!

Isn’t an American legislator, or a candidate for a seat in the United States Congress, expected to swear his or her allegiance first and foremost to the Constitution of the United States and all it represents – and not to a foreign land and a foreign leader? In the end, despite Reed’s pronouncements of his allegiance to Israel, Brad Sherman, AIPAC’s long and trusted ally, quashed him, winning by a margin of two to one.

The statements on Reed’s page are so virulently anti-American leadership, and so fanatically pro-Israeli leadership, that they should call into question Reed’s primary loyalty to the United States.

Israel and the United States are not one country. Being pro-Israel should not wield so much power that it becomes a principal issue in American elections. When the National Republican Senatorial Committee challenges Alexi Giannoulias because he desires equal peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians, there is something inhumanely and terribly wrong.

When a neophyte candidate for Congress like Mark Reed takes his own President to task and shows fealty to a foreign leader over his own, there is something terribly wrong.

When the United States consistently sides with Israel to the detriment of American citizens and America’s standing in the world, there is something terribly wrong.

It’s time to right this wrong. Holding office in America is not for the purpose of serving Israel. It’s for the purpose of serving America, the American people, and America’s honor in the world.

All through the George W. Bush administration, Americans were fed a steady diet of fear, strategically orchestrated by Bush and Cheney to promote their political agenda. Americans were scared into supporting war. They were frightened into buying masking tape. They were jolted by elevated color codes. They were unnerved about flying on planes. And much much more…

For eight long years Bush and Cheney were masters of mania, preying on a nervous nation through well-timed machinations. What coincidence that terrorist threats would arise before elections and critical legislation. Even Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri would broadcast messages that helped push G.W.’s platform.

Using unjustified fear is an abuse of governance. Sadly for Los Angeles, Lee Baca, its Sheriff of twelve years who is running unopposed in this election, is employing the same fear tactics as George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Mere days before California’s November 2nd election, whose ballot includes Proposition 19, which if passed, would regulate, control and tax marijuana, Sheriff Baca is using free broadcast media to strike fear in voters against the Proposition he vehemently opposes.

As Baca’s luck would have it, Halloween arrives just two days before the November 2nd election. To frighten voters against Prop 19, Baca ordered his sheriffs to confiscate marijuana edibles from legal dispensaries and remove them from circulation so they’re not distributed to trick-or-treaters on Halloween. Baca then used the confiscated edibles as part of his free anti-Prop 19 broadcast media blitz.

Are Baca’s actions ethical – or even legal? Is it legal and ethical to confiscate vendor’s merchandise and then use it as a vehicle for free media air time to push a political agenda – an obvious political agenda the Sheriff refuses to admit?

Here’s one of the videos showing the confiscated edibles and fear tactics Baca is using:

Ten days ago there was an incident of three boys in Huntington Beach, California, who were admitted to the hospital after ingesting marijuana cookies. The ingestion was accidental after a parent failed to put the cookies away. Of course that was a serious oversight, and thankfully the boys are okay.

But let’s get real here. Every home has dangers. Homes can contain medications, alcoholic beverages, toxic cleaning agents, sharp cutlery, swimming pools, balconies, staircases, bunk beds, bathtubs, hot stoves, storage bins, razors, sharp tools, lethal weapons like rifles and handguns, and tragically, abusive adults. Left unattended and unmonitored, myriad calamities can happen. Edible pot may come in attractive packages, but as long as it’s properly stored, there’s no more danger than that which already exists in most homes. And truthfully, there is still not a single reported case of anyone dying from pot.

California is broke. It needs revenue. And it needs to move into the 21st century with legitimate legislation. If Sheriff Lee Baca and Dianne Feinstein and the others who oppose Prop 19 want to keep California from moving forward, they do significantly more harm to the state than legalizing marijuana. America is sliding backward in every area. We’re a laughing stock to the world for sacrificing progression for regression. Not legalizing marijuana is as absurd as not using every available resource to push forward a clean, green economy.

If Baca doesn’t want to smoke pot, he doesn’t have to. If Baca doesn’t want to eat edibles, he doesn’t have to. But that’s no reason to use underhanded tactics to prevent wise legislation from passing – legislation that will generate income California desperately needs.

Baca, himself, with an annual salary of $284,183, doesn’t suffer from lack of income. He suffers from lack of wisdom.

On April 1, 2010, in a no-holds-barred interview with the Christian Science Monitor, Israeli peacemaker Jonathan Ben Artzi, a PhD candidate at Brown University and nephew to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, made clear his belief that equality and social justice will prevail in Israel when the government and people of the United States adopt a no-tolerance stance toward Israel’s abuse of Palestinians. Ben Artzi, whose family has lived in the region for nine generations, and who’s seen a lifetime of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians, declared:

“Sometimes it takes a good friend to tell you when enough is enough. As they did with South Africa two decades ago, concerned citizens across the US can make a difference by encouraging Washington to get the message to Israel that this cannot continue.”

Jonathan’s reference to South Africa is a testament to the powerful roll played by valiant Americans who participated in protests, boycotts and divestment actions nationwide, most between 1984 and 1989, which ultimately forced the white minority South African government to relinquish control over its oppressed Black majority.

Ben Artzi, a man of conscience and compassion, served 18 months in prison for refusing his mandatory service in Israel’s military. Ben Artzi goes on to say:

“If Americans truly are our friends, they should shake us up and take away the keys, because right now we are driving drunk, and without this wake-up call, we will soon find ourselves in the ditch of an undemocratic, doomed state.”

This week, Jonathan Ben Artzi should be pleased to know that a concerned and energized coalition of Americans has heeded the call to rescue out of control Israel from driving deeper into its ditch.

On Wednesday, September 8th, at a noon press conference in Los Angeles in front of the Israeli Consulate, the California Israel Divestment Campaign, a culturally diverse group of compassionate Americans announced the launch of California ballot initiative 10-0020 to require public employee systems to divest from certain business activities in Israel. In its first official announcement, the California Israel Divestment Campaign (IDC) delivered the following explanation:

“Although California has adopted policies requiring divestment from Sudan, Iran and other nations, this is the first ballot measure in the nation aimed at changing Israeli policies through divestment by State agencies. It directs California’s large public employee and teacher pension funds to be consistent with their responsible investing policies and to divest from companies that violate the human rights of Palestinians.

The description provided by the office of the Attorney General when it approved the measure for circulation says that the initiative “prohibits state retirement funds from investing in companies engaged in certain business activities in Israel.”

According to Chris Yatooma, the official proponent of the initiative, “Our government has done nothing to end Israel’s brutal occupation and violation of internationally recognized human rights, UN Resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.” In fact, as campaign organizer Yael Korin, notes, “our tax dollars now help fund these violations of human rights to the tune of more than $3 billion a year in grants, adding up to a staggering $106 billion over the past five decades.”

“California retirement funds have their own disturbing record,” said local campaign organizer Sherna Gluck, a member of the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). “Our public retirement systems have more than $1.5 billion invested in at least eight companies that provide war materials and services used in violation of internationally recognized human rights, including support for the illegal Israeli settlements and the “Separation Wall.”

For over four decades, since the 1967 Six Day War, propagandized as a victorious miracle on par with David v. Goliath, Americans have ingested a distorted media diet of Israelis portrayed as victims and Palestinians portrayed as villains. But with the launch of domestic and international outlets for independent journalism and new media, the truth is now accessible. More and more Americans have come to realize that Israelis are the oppressors and Palestinians are the oppressed. In addition, more and more Americans are learning that the relationship between the United States and Israel is not really in America’s best interests – a previously untenable concept.

What is occurring as a result of Americans’ new knowledge is their widespread anger over being misled for so long. Many Americans, myself included, feel a sense of guilt at being unwitting pawns in Israel’s forty year occupation and systematic torture, deprivation, and dare I say, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Many Americans are further incensed that our legislators have voted annually to award Israel, a wealthy and thriving nation, 3 billion of our tax dollars which go directly into its military.

Fortunately there are ways to fight back against this tyranny in which we Americans have been unwitting pawns. The launch of the California Israel Divestment Campaign is a powerful weapon to that end. Divestment worked well in defeating apartheid in South Africa. Indeed, South Africa’s own Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a principal endorser of this new Israel Divestment Campaign, said this of the campaign on August 22nd:

“We defeated apartheid nonviolently because the international community agreed to support the disinvestment in apartheid campaign. A similar campaign can help to bring peace in the Middle East and do so nonviolently.”

This much beloved Nobel Laureate is correct. As is Nobel Laureate and Belfast peacemaker, Mairead Maguire, who is also an endorser.

Each day the momentum is building for this divestment campaign. The list of individuals and organizations that support this effort, which requires the state public retirement funds (PERS and STRS) to divest from companies that provide products or services contributing to the construction or maintenance of Israeli settlements and/or the Separation Wall in the Palestinian Territories; and/or military supplies, equipment and services to the State of Israel that are used by the military and/or police in violation of internationally recognized human rights, as determined by the UN and NGOS, is growing ever larger. And this is just the beginning. This is the just the first divestment launch in California. Similar launches in other California cities are soon to come.

Even though the goal to divest is one of justice and human rights, it will take much hard work to achieve. At least 434,000 registered California voters must sign a petition to qualify the measure for the statewide ballot. Petitions should be ready for signature gathering in mid-September 2010, after which there will be five months to gather the required signatures. If the requisite number of signatures is gathered, the initiative will appear on the next statewide ballot after March, 2011.

If a majority of voters support the measure, it becomes California law and the public retirement systems in California will have to sell their stocks (divest) in those companies that provide goods and services to Israel which violate UN Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, and international rules of human rights. It is important to note that the Initiative will in no way jeopardize the pension benefits of PERS and STRS members.

California is frequently the national leader. With this divestment campaign, Californians are poised to spark a state-by-state divestiture movement to parallel the anti-Apartheid campaign that helped defeat the oppressive rule in South Africa. To participate, please visit here. If you’re in Southern California, please email: ca.divest.sc@gmail.com

To underscore the passion and humanity of the Israel Divestment Campaign, Marcy Winograd, former candidate for California’s 36th Congressional District, offers this personal and poignant explanation for her own participation:

“Today I lend my name and my support to a crucial ballot measure calling for divestiture in companies that aid the Israeli occupation of Palestine and perpetuate the brutal blockade of over a million people, half of them children, in the ever-more crowded Gaza strip.

As a Jewish woman of conscience, as a teacher who contributes to the California State Teacher Retirement System, I do not want my name, nor the fruits of my labor supporting companies that collude with the government of Israel to steal Palestinian land, bulldoze Palestinian homes,
or imprison those in Gaza routinely denied access to clean water and medicine.

Now is the time for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all believers, be they believers in a higher power or simply in the power of love, to stand for human rights and to demand that our public institutions, like CALSTRS and CALPRS, sell stock in corporations that profit off of misery in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza — making us all less safe.

I urge my fellow teachers to echo my call. Let us divest of our stock in Caterpillar, which makes bullet proof tractors that slice Palestinian homes to ribbons in minutes. Let us divest of General Electric that builds the weapons that terrorize the next generation in Gaza. Let us give the people of our great golden state, California, an opportunity to promote peace by saying NO to companies involved in ever-expanding settlements that erase the beautiful olive trees of Palestine, only to generate more hatred.

In the name of peace, of dignity, of equal rights, let us collect enough signatures to put this measure on the ballot and join a global movement calling for divestiture.

Thank you, my friends, for your courage.”

Editor’s Note: This article originally implied that LV Spina personally profited from the products sold on his website IdidntforgetIdontforgive. Mr LV Spina sends all revenue collected from his site to charities, including members of the armed forces. The section of the article referring to this has been removed. AlterNet regrets the error.

Photo by Hagen for News Blaster, NY Daily News

I’ve always believed in unions. I come from a long line of union members: steel workers, sanitation workers, office workers, police, fire, you name it. They’re all in my family. My American family typifies the American working class. In fact, if all the unions represented by my family were to strike for a week, the whole country would suffer. Construction would stop. Crime would go undeterred. Fires would go unextinguished. And in my case, students would go untaught. Yes, I, too, am a union member. I’m a teacher.

Right now, America’s unions are under fire. Millions of workers are unemployed and companies large and small are suffering. Business owners would love nothing more than to bypass unions to use lower wage, uninsured personnel. Given the opportunity, unemployed non-union labor would replace union workers in a New York second for the same jobs at lower wages with no benefits. In today’s fragile economy, the only lovers of unions are the union members themselves.

Given how unpopular unions are, one would think union members would be extra careful to be welcoming, congenial, considerate and non-ideological with potential employers when jobs are on the line. All types of businesses and individuals contract with unions; from those held in the highest esteem, to those of ill repute. With such a diversity of contractors, not every union member feels kinship with those who foot their bills. Not every cop or fire fighter coalesces with the person and business s/he’s assigned to protect, but s/he protects them just the same.

Educators can’t choose not to teach certain pupils simply because they don’t want to. Black, white, hispanic, asian, jewish, catholic, muslim, buddhist, bipolar, down-syndrome, hyperactive students all deserve education. Teachers unions don’t boycott specific groups of students because they don’t like their sect or color, or because they’re somehow reminiscent of a painful past. If that should happen – if unions and union members should be so self-serving, unprofessional, prejudiced and juvenile to use criteria like ethnicity, religion, race, disability or reminiscence to defer services – those unions and union members should be stripped of union privileges and forfeit their jobs to those who prize propriety. Unions are contracted because of skills and compliance with rules and regulations – not because of bias and ideology. The only ideology acceptable for a union should be dedication to the excellent performance of one’s job.

Of course there are legitimate circumstances where unions are correct in refusing contracts and in making demands in the interest of their rank and file. Members’ health and safety are of paramount importance. No effective or worthwhile union should accept unsafe working conditions or an unhealthy workplace. Abuse of workers should never be tolerated. Unions exist to negotiate the best possible work environment and compensation for their members. However, nowhere do unsubstantiated fear, contempt for religion, or resurgent memory factor into union contracts as negotiable provisions for worker rights and protection. Such issues are frivolous, unprofessional, and unworthy of consideration; except of course if a worker’s emotional or psychological state as a result of such fear renders him legitimately unable to perform. That’s another matter.

The New York Daily News is reporting that union construction workers are refusing to build the Manhattan mosque to be located two blocks from Ground Zero. This is ideological impropriety that union leadership should cease immediately. It’s bad enough that only 41% of Americans had a positive view of unions prior to this unfounded anti-Muslim tantrum. Adding cultural and religious bias, logistic sensitivity and unfounded fear to the existing union stereotypes of over-coddled and over-paid, affords union detractors greater ability to incite anti-union sentiment with new pejoratives like hyper-sensitive, hysterical, illogical and emotionally weak.

Yes, weak!

Those union members vowing not to work on the mosque may believe they’re taking principled stands, but what they’re really doing is exhibiting unnecessary fear and being emotionally and mentally weak.

Honestly, just how weak can we Americans be? We flatten other nations to the ground. We decimate their schools, hospitals, hotels, apartment buildings, playgrounds and businesses. We kill and maim babies, children, teens, the elderly, women, men and animals. We destroy entire cities with aerial and ground attacks using weapons of mass destruction that sometimes last for weeks, without a second’s consideration for the suffering we cause. But we Americans can’t tolerate the terrible memories of one horrible day nearly a decade ago.

Believe me, I don’t mean to sound callous or disregard the horrors of September 11th. I had a close family member in the towers in 1993 and 2001 who escaped unharmed both times. I have first responder family who were on the ground in the aftermath of the attacks. I grew up in Rockaway Beach, New York, home to many first responders. I was devastated by the events of September 11th. I understand.

But considering what we’ve done to the people and infrastructures of Iraq and Afghanistan who did NOTHING to us, we really have little to complain about. We lost two buildings and 3,000 innocent people in New York City, but we’ve destroyed two countries and over a million people in return. Can’t anyone see that in comparison our casualties and suffering, painful as they are, actually pale in comparison?

We send children to bed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan every night, terrified of America’s bombs, yet macho men in hard hats can’t overcome their memories? Come on, union members. You’re stronger and better than that! Don’t succumb to your weakness. Stand tall in your strength. You can do this project. You can build this mosque. Just do it!

The New York Daily News further reports that Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn, has started the online petition drive “Hard Hat Pledge,” which asks others to vow not to work on the mosque if it stays in its current Park Place location. Sullivan says:

“Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country. People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there” [Park Place]. Hopefully, this will be a tool to get them to move it. I got a problem with this ostentatious building looming over Ground Zero.”

This “ostentatious building” Sullivan describes will be thirteen stories high. I’m a native New Yorker. I don’t know many thirteen story buildings in Manhattan that loom over anything. By Manhattan standards, thirteen stories is pretty damn low.

The Daily News also reports on a Manhattan construction worker, L.V. Spina, from my old neighborhood of Rockaway Beach, NY. Mr. Spina told The News he’d be fine if the mosque were built next to his house in Rockaway Beach but not near Ground Zero. Somehow I have a problem believing that. 

I wonder if Mr. Spina and Mr. Sullivan would have taken that same “Hard Hat Pledge” not to build the sex shops and liquor stores that exist today near Ground Zero. Perhaps Mr. Spina would prefer the sex shops also be built next to his home in Rockaway instead of near Ground Zero. Somehow I think not.

Bottom line, fellow union members. Our unions aren’t looking too rosy in the United States right now. Sure there are like-minded ideologues who believe the mosque should not be built on Park Place and they will support you. But there are many others, some of whom are anti-union, who believe the mosque should be built on Park Place and that you as over-coddled, over-paid union members should stop caving to your fear and ideology and do your union duty and build it.

So why stir the pot? Do what unions are expected to do. Be the masters of your craft. Use your well-honed skill. Do an incredible job and build it. You’re not being hired to worship. You’re being hired because you’re the best at your professions. Set an example for union excellence and build a work of art.

You can do this! You should do this!