Search Results

The act of stretching is an intentional decision to extend oneself beyond perceived limits. This year, 2017, was definitely a stretch year for many individuals, communities and organizations that have taken a forward facing posture to address the complexities of social change with an eye towards having systems-level impact. Prompting a challenge for all of us to remain balanced in our efforts, while holding just enough healthy tension against a shifting social, economic, and political backdrop. This type of stretching is not only in response to the actual strategies that are being deployed to address complex social issues. It is the required heavy lifting that we all must do everyday to “hold the necessary space” to support the most critical piece of this puzzle – the cultivating, building, modeling and sustaining of healthy, positive, and equitable relationships. Healthy, positive, equitable relationships are those relationships with citizens, leaders, organizations, and communities that require hard conversations about difficult issues, creation of intentional space, and interruption of false narratives. These relationships are grounded in truth and resist complicity in supporting issues or practices that perpetuate inequities, operate from a place of good intention and honesty, without a hidden agenda and resist vilifying or rendering individuals invisible when issues get uncomfortable and hard – while extending grace, support and space to grapple with the intense change necessary to amplify our collective efforts. These relationships form the rich tapestry that’s woven together to form a complex web of alliances, collaborations and networks to support aligned, effective and sustainable change. Consequently, the effort to maintain their integrity is constant and necessitates individual self- reflection, learning and on-going growth. It requires us all to go deeper into ourselves to… Become conscious of our own triggers that are grounded in our own secret insecurities and traumatizing situations that have occurred in the past and seem to show up unconsciously in present situations or engagement with new individuals. Retreat when needed and embrace the type of vulnerability that enables us to say, “I don’t know – can you be a thought-partner with me?” Regroup when we feel paralyzed and integrate lessons learned towards seeking a different result or alternative path forward. Have the courage to stand alone and model a way of being that creates a bigger table for unpopular voices towards creating more grounded, innovative, and successful strategies. Be present, silent, and listen to/with others to see past their struggle, acknowledging the things they have done well and challenge them to let go of what has been to dream of what could be. Know when to stop pushing… to pause, encourage respite, celebrate, break bread together, and get to know each other on a deeper level beyond the present work without trepidation or fear. Sit in the reality of the moment, while balancing the vision of what it can become. Deal with our fear of being rendered invisible, discarded, and unappreciated as we tackle this really hard work. This is our work! The cultivating, building, modeling, and sustaining of healthy, positive, equitable relationships must be a constant thread in all of our work everyday. It will help steady us in our most challenging moments and provide collective strength as we embrace a futurist posture that enables sharp pivot towards greater impact. Only in this posture can we anticipate and acknowledge shifting trends and galvanize the collective towards a shared future that is shaped by diverse voices, new narratives, innovation, and aligned collaborations that disrupt policies and practices that further perpetuate barriers and inequities. I challenge us all to continue the stretch as we move into 2018. We all have to do our work and continue to grapple with these critical questions: What is your struggle to nurture healthy, positive, equitable relationships? What do you need to heal and embrace to have the courage to lean into this work? What trauma do you need to face that stops you from embracing this movement? What ways will you choose to resist practices, behaviors, and strategies that hinder the impact of the stretch-even when you feel hurt, discounted, or uncertain about change? What three things are you prepared to let go in 2018? What three things will you continue, elevate and do differently in 2018? I invite everyone to embrace this challenge and movement. I would love to hear your responses, if you are willing to share at Tracey.Washington@cothinkk.org. Our ability to have ongoing discourse about this important issue will help drive us towards the best solutions that are necessary to create a better tomorrow for future generations to come. Tracey Greene-Washington is the founder of CoThinkk, former board chair of The Center for Leadership Innovation, and leads two statewide initiatives focused on health and early childhood success. She has over 18 years of experience in the philanthropic and nonprofit sector and is a native of Asheville North Carolina.

Most North Carolinians don’t appear to be very upset about a potential budget-busting increase in homeowners insurance in 2018. The reason for that appears to be that most North Carolinians have no idea it may be coming. North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey announced in November that the North Carolina Rate Bureau filed for a statewide average rate increase of 18.7 percent for homeowners insurance. State officials haven’t exactly hidden the proposal, but they certainly haven’t been going the extra mile in raising awareness of what might be coming down the bend. Insurance firms say the hike is warranted by their models of future extreme weather, and anyone who watches The Weather Channel has undoubtedly notice the uptick in catastrophic events. (It’s more than a bit ironic that these forecasts are being taken seriously in a state that was widely ridiculed for a 2012 legislative effort to bar state agencies from making plans for sea level rise). Regardless, North Carolinians are a pretty savvy bunch, so the lack of outcry over the proposal reflects the lack of publicity surrounding it. The Department of Insurance website has a prominent notice of the proposal, but offers no explanation of how the state is divided up into insurance territories or a map showing how specific areas would be impacted. NC Rate Bureau Proposes Major Home and Rental Insurance Increase Wayne Goodwin, who served as North Carolina Insurance Commissioner for 8 years, said “It is rather curious that the new Insurance Commissioner failed to include in his initial November public announcement either a link to a map showing the proposed rate changes by geographical territory or the comparative summary data chart. When I served as Commissioner it was imperative to include that information for maximum transparency under the law. Also, without the maps or summary data how could the public meaningfully understand what has been filed by the insurance industry and how could the public meaningfully participate in the December public comment period?’’ Full disclosure: Goodwin is now serving as Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, so partisans may dismiss his comments. But it’s hard to dismiss how awful this proposal really is. In some areas proposals were put forth requesting homeowners increases well over 50 percent. The NCRB is capping increases statewide at 25 percent for those policies, but if you’re buying rental insurance or are a condominium owner, caps on those policies could rise 40 percent. For people on fixed incomes, those numbers mean even tighter budgets and less money to spend in their local economies. And again, those numbers get worse in some areas. Willo Kelly told WRAL she’s afraid the increase could drive people out of their homes in some areas such as the coast, where many property owners also have flood and wind insurance policies in addition to homeowners insurance. “When you add all of your insurance up,’’ Kelly said, “it can be more than your mortgage payment.’’ Regulators for the state will negotiate with insurers; if a compromise is reached, it would be up to Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey to approve it. It one is not reached, the issue would be the topic of a public hearing, probably to be held next summer. This issue is of paramount importance to retirees, anyone on a fixed income or anyone seeing slow wage growth. Couple the prospect of significantly higher insurance rates with looming higher charges for electricity and health care costs virtually guaranteed to rise, and 2018 looks to deliver a nasty triple threat to family budgets. North Carolinians can do more than simply hope this proposal dies on the vine. They can speak out. However, time is running short. “Safeguarding consumers against unfair insurance practices is the responsibility of NC Department of Insurance. Consumer participation in administrative, legislative, and judicial processes is valuable for these purposes,’’ said Steve Hahn, AARP North Carolina Associate State Director. “Unfortunately limiting the ability to weigh in undermines our opportunity to make any problems and concerns known. That is why AARP is urging people who oppose this major insurance rate increase to act quickly before the December 29th deadline passes.’’ The North Carolina Department of Insurance is taking public comments on its proposal via email or mail until Dec. 29th. Send comments via email to 2017HomeInsurance@ncdoi.gov or mail to Tricia Ford, 1201 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1201. This commentary was written in cooperation with AARP North Carolina. Distributed by Carolina Commentary.com

HAVANA – A few hours before I was to meet the Cuban doctor overseeing an investigation into an allegation of sonic attacks on members of the American diplomatic community in this communist country, I stood outside the Hotel Capri second guessing my decision to go inside Hotel Capri. Built by American mobsters in 1955, the Capri – according to U.S. government officials – is a crime scene. It’s one of the places where “numerous employees at the U.S. embassy in Havana have been targeted in specific attacks” from a phantom weapon, the state department charged back in October. I went to the 19-story hotel to see this torture chamber for my self. I expected to find just a few foolhardy souls inside. But the Capri’s lobby was teeming with people who seemed either unaware –or unafraid – of the sonic attacks that the state department claims injured some of the Americans who spent time in this 19-story hotel at the corner of 21st and N streets in the Vedado section of the Cuban capital. While U.S. government investigators say they have no reason to think Cuba actually launched these attacks, President Trump said he believes Cuba is responsible for the alleged attacks – which are thought to have started shortly after his election in November 2017. The victims, according to the state department, have been hit with headaches, dizziness, fatigue, difficulty sleeping and some cognition problems. I experienced none of these things during my visit to the Capri. Of course that doesn’t mean a sonic weapon wasn’t used on American diplomats in this hotel and at other locations throughout Havana. But to believe in the existence of such a weapon you have to believe that Cuba has developed something akin to a neutron bomb. The neutron bomb is a Cold War-era weapon that kills people and leaves buildings standing. Its sonic counterpart – if it exists – would be capable of targeting a single person while not injuring anyone nearby. If you think that’s the stuff of science fiction, so does Manuel Villar. An ear, nose and throat specialist, Villar is the coordinator of the 10-member team of Cuban doctors that has been trying to solve the medical part of this conundrum. I met with him shortly after leaving the Hotel Capri. “This is very, very weird,” Villar said of the state department’s sonic attacks theory. “We are trying to find the reason for what they (U.S. officials) claim happened to these embassy employees. But they have given us little to work with.” Villar said the U.S. hasn’t told Cuba which embassy employees claim to have been injured, or shared the prior medical histories of the people whose symptoms have been diagnosed. “They don’t want to cooperate,” Villar said. “They hide information.” Maybe, maybe not. What’s certain is that facts are in short supply in this strange case. So far, what we know for sure is that the U.S. government has offered no evidence to back up its claim that “sonic attacks” are responsible for the mysterious symptoms that, reportedly, have afflicted American embassy workers in Cuba. “To accuse someone of a crime,” Villar said, “you have to have the weapon, the victim and the motive.” By these measures, Cuba hardly seems to be a good suspect. It doesn’t appear that Cuba had a motive. Relations between the United States and Cuba didn’t begin to sour until months after it is believed the “sonic attacks” started. As for a weapon, it’s a stretch to think that this cash-strapped country has the means to produce a sonic weapon capable of targeting a specific person in a crowded hotel or elsewhere without being detected – or harming others. And while it’s been reported that nearly two dozen Americans in Cuba have been injured in some way, not a single one of these “victims” has been identified. Still, as the host nation, Cuba must shoulder a lot of the responsibility for safeguarding American diplomats – and for figuring out what caused the illnesses that are believed to have befallen them. To help do this, Villar said his committee, while continuing to work with U.S. government investigators, will urge nongovernment organizations in the United States to help solve this medical mystery. “I am offering an open invitation to any researchers at American universities and medical institutions to come to Cuba to work alongside us to research this problem,” he told me. I hope someone takes him up on this offer. It may take such an intervention to move the United States and Cuba beyond this diplomatic impasse. By DeWayne Wickham http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/trump-cuba-us-diplomats-attack/index.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-cb–cuba-sonic-attacks-20171013-story.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/02/cuba-sonic-attacks-us-spies

Washington, D.C. – I stood behind a bank of television cameras on Thursday at a late afternoon press conference in the National Press Club looking at Bruno Rodriguez, and thinking of Donald Trump. Rodriguez is the Cuban foreign minister who came to the Edward R. Murrow Room in this citadel of American journalism to deny that his country’s government is responsible for the strange afflictions that have befallen nearly two-dozen U.S. diplomats stationed in Cuba. Trump, the reality TV show host who now occupies the White House, says the Cuban government is responsible for the headaches, dizziness and hearing loss that the embassy employees have reported suffering. According to the State Department, these Americans are believed to have been singled out by a dog-whistle-type device that emits sounds beyond the range of human hearing. Never mind that acoustics experts have panned the possibility of such a Buck Rogers-type device being responsible for what ails these diplomats, Trump clings to his argument like a barnacle to the side of a ship. “I do believe Cuba’s responsible,” Trump said days before Rodriguez’s press conference. “I do believe that, and it’s a very unusual attack, as you know, but I do believe Cuba’s responsible.” It’s that kind of mushy-mouthed talk that riles Rodriguez. “Anyone who says it was a deliberate attack (on the Americans by Cuba), is deliberately lying,” Rodriguez, a lawyer who taught international public law before joining Cuba’s diplomatic corps, said in a departure from his prepared remarks. In essence, he was accusing Trump of knowingly lying about Cuba’s complicity in the illnesses that have befallen the American diplomats. I have no way of knowing if Trump is misleading Americans when he blames Cuba for these maladies. But what I do know, Trump is a serial liar. The list of the prevarications he has been caught telling since he emerged as a contender for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination is breathtakingly long. Back in July, The New York Times published scores of them. Politifact keeps a running update of the president’s “false statements” that is now eight pages long on its website. Last month, the Washington Post reported that during his first 263 days in office, Trump made 1,318 statements that were false or misleading. That’s an average of five a day. In one of the most memorable scenes from the 1958 movie “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” a character played by the legendary actor Burl Ives proclaims; “There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity!” He’s right. And it is because the stench of mendacity fills the airs so often when Trump speaks that it is hard to know when he might be telling the truth. So far, here’s what we do know about the mysterious illnesses. Instead of working with the Cuban government to figure out what has caused them, the Trump administration has decided to politicize these health problems. “It is high time for the United States to speak the truth” about this matter, Rodriguez told the journalists who filled the press club room that is named for the journalist who helped chase Joseph McCarthy from power. McCarthy was a Republican U.S. senator from Wisconsin who terrorized thousands of Americans with misleading and untruthful accusations of communist leanings during the Cold War’s early years. But the most damning evidence of the lie in Trump’s charge of Cuba’s role in creating the embassy workers’ medical problems just might be what Rodriguez said near the end of his press conference. “If Havana were really an unsafe place (for Americans), the U.S. authorities would not have requested 212 visas for relatives and friends of diplomats between January and October, nor (which its diplomats have made) more than 250 pleasure trips outside” of Havana. Murrow once said that to “be credible we must be truthful.” By this standard – and in the absence of any showing of proof – it is hard to believe anything that Donald Trump says about Cuba’s role in the my serious illnesses because he has revealed himself in so many other matters to be incapable of telling the truth to the American people. By DeWayne Wickham https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/science/cuba-sonic-weapon.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/cuba-mass-hysteria-sonic-attacks-neurologists http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/joseph-mccarthy http://rolandanderson.se/comics/buckrogers/buckrogers.php https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/10/president-trump-has-made-1318-false-or-misleading-claims-over-263-days/?utm_term=.8f09259a8935 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-his-tax-plan-biggest-cut-ever/

“We’re here today to talk about Move to Amend, the push to … (Stunned silence as an animated dollar bill walks into the room, waving his gloved cartoon hands in the air to gain attention. He clears his throat.) “Hi there!! I’m money! I can talk!’’ The dollar strikes an endearing pose and bats his eyes. “I don’t just talk! The Supreme Court says I’m speeeeeech.’’ “That’s ridiculous. You’re an inanimate object.’’ “Whatever. You can call me Bill. The name works for me and all my friends, the $50, the $10. Doesn’t matter! Even a Bill-y-un! We’re all Bills! He-men Bills! No chicks on any of our faces!’’ “But you’re not a person!’’ (Rumbling sound. Plaster begins to fall from the ceiling. Through a gaping hole in the room steps a 40-story building. In a booming voice…). “HI THERE!” “Good Lord! You can speak too?” “OF COURSE. I’M A CORPORATION!” “Yeah, I can see it says that on your façade – hey, I think that falling plaster broke my leg!” “HA HA! CAN’T MAKE AN OMELET WITHOUT BREAKING A FEW LEGS!” “That’s eggs – wait, why would a building want an omelet?” “THE SUPREME COURT SAYS I’M A PERSON! PEOPLE LIKE OMELETS. HI BILL!” “Hi! Can we talk? I’m everywhere! Talking! I never get tired! Of talking!’’ “HA HA, TALK AWAY, BILL! NEED ANY IDEAS ON WHAT TO SAY? I HAVE LOTS OF IDEAS!” *** The preceding was a fantasy. Except it’s a reality. One created by Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that said corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The 5-4 vote overturned a century of campaign law restricting campaign spending by unions and corporations and helped codify the theory that corporations are people. A lot of people predicted Citizens United would lead to an explosion in campaign spending. They were right. In 2016, candidates running for federal office spend $6.4 billion campaigning. Meanwhile, lobbyists spent $3.15 billion trying to shape federal legislation. In each instance, those totals doubled the amount spent in 2000. Citizens United didn’t lead to straight-up bribery. Offering a congressman money in return for a favor is still illegal. Instead, Citizens United led to the rise of super PACs, which can’t directly coordinate with a candidate, but can collect unlimited amounts of money from the wealthy to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that spending by overall outside groups – not just super PACs but by dark money groups and other organizations – topped $1.5 billion in 2016, up 43 percent from the previous presidential race. Spending by outside groups in North Carolina’s U.S. Senate contest topped $77 million alone. In 2016, 135 wealthy donors each gave more than $1 million to outside groups. Consider the income disparity this country currently experiences. David Koch and his brother, as of Feb. 28 of this year, were each worth $47 billion. Forty-seven billion is 831,412 times the annual median U.S. household income. The Kochs throw around a lot of money for candidates and political causes. Back in June at a Koch-sponsored gathering one donor said his “Dallas piggy bank” was closed until Congress would “Get Obamacare repealed and replaced, get tax reform passed. Get it done and we’ll open it back up.” if you’re a congressperson on the phone five hours a day trying to raise campaign money from that group of people, odds are good you’re going to pick up some of their views. You might even wind up trying over and over to pass a health care “reform’’ bill that polls slightly below a bucket of warm spit. Here’s a remedy to this problem: “We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.’’ That’s the language in the Move to Amend push for a constitutional amendment to redress the situation we’re in. Hundreds of communities across the country and state, from Raleigh to Sylva, have called for the amendment. To learn more go to https://movetoamend.org/ In objecting to Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.’’ Stevens was just stating the obvious. Sometimes the obvious hasn’t been stated enough. So we’ll throw one more out there: Money talks. But it isn’t speech.

Every time that old barroom tune – which didn’t become this nation’s official patriotic song until 117 years after it was written – is performed, I stand up. I get up even though the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner contains a hated-filled rant against the runaway slaves who won their freedom by fighting for the British during the War of 1812. Some of those slaves helped defeat an American force in 1814 that was defending Washington, D.C. When the American troops broke ranks and ran from the battlefield, they cleared the way for the British to burn the White House and Congress. Francis Scott Key was among those who fled that fight only days before he wrote the Star Spangled Banner, journalist Jefferson Morley reveals in his book, Snow Storm in August. I rise for every performance of that song by Key, a Maryland lawyer and slave owner who once branded blacks “a distinct and inferior race of people.” I stand even though I know of the awful mistreatment that far too many of the black patriots who joined this nation’s military have been forced to suffer. From President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1906 decision to dishonorably discharge all 167 members of a black infantry regiment based on a trumped up charge of misconduct that wasn’t reversed until 1970, to the 1941 lynching of a black soldier on the U.S. Army base at Fort Benning, Ga., that was never solved, it’s understandable that some blacks might find bogus the national anthem’s patriotic appeal. Add to this the denial of “equal protection of the law” to dozens of unarmed black men that were killed by police in the first decades of this century, and whose murders were affirmed by judges and juries, and it doesn’t surprise me that some protestors refuse to stand for Key’s song. My decision to stand for the Star Spangled Banner is not rooted in a rejection of those blacks who take a knee. I do so in partnership with them. In October 1964, I volunteered for military service as the Vietnam War was heating up. Three months earlier, Donald Trump got the first of five draft deferments that he sought to duck military service when the nation he now leads was at war. Now, as president and the nation’s self-anointed “patriot-in-chief,” Trump bristles at the sight of professional athletes kneeling during the national anthem to protest the mistreatment of blacks by the cops who give police in this country a bad name. But he took a knee for years during the Vietnam war. When I stand for the national anthem, I do so as a black man whose claim to patriotism is validated by a national defense service medal, a Vietnam service medal with a Bronze Star and a Republic of Vietnam Campaign medal that I earned. I stand as the grandson of an impoverished black man who served 2 ½ years in the U.S. Navy prior to World War I and whose dirt-poor son – my father – left a Baltimore ghetto to serve this country during World War II. In 1944, my dad volunteered to serve with the 56th Armored Infantry Battalion of the 12 Armored Division Infantry, a white combat unit that had taken heavy casualties and was badly in need of replacements. He was among the first blacks to serve in an integrated combat unit, years before President Harry Truman desegregated the U.S. Armed Forces. Like my grandfather, my father returned from his wartime service to a lifetime of menial jobs and low pay. I stand for the national anthem to honor their military service. But most of all I stand to contrast my family’s service to this country against that of Donald Trump, whose claim to patriotism can be found only in his tough-talking tweets – not his real life actions. I stand in support of the right of Colin Kaepernick, the blacklisted NFL quarterback, and other black athletes to non-violently protest violence against blacks. By DeWayne Wickham Related Links http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/35621?ret=True http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/09/02/the-story-of-the-only-known-lynching-on-a-u-s-military-base/?utm_term=.06a05f5f5f7c https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-tragic-forgotten-history-of-black-military-veterans https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/wheres-debate-francis-scott-keys-slave-holding-legacy-180959550/ http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Race-Ethnicity-and-Gender/The-Brownsville-Incident.aspx http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jul/21/was-trump-draft-dodger/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/23/guiliani-obama-patriot-wickham-column/23844289/ http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/black-soldier-and-sailors-war/ http://www.newsweek.com/police-killings-unarmed-black-men-538542 https://wp.towson.edu/spcoll/2014/06/30/the-fight-for-the-anthem/

Supposedly late one night in Tennessee in the 1960’s after the last bottle of bourbon was finished, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” The quote has been verified however; whether he said it after the last bottle of bourbon was finished is up for debate. President Johnson was from Texas, he grew up in the South and understood the politics of racism from the inside, and he saw it as a ploy to divide and conquer. I have wondered for years how people could be convinced to vote against their own self-interest, and here was President Johnson, putting it out there on how to control some poor, uneducated and uninformed white folks. But those were simpler times, and the people he was referring to could find jobs, manufacturing was strong, imports were not as prevalent, you didn’t need to tell people to “Buy American.” When they bought, they bought American. Equal rights laws were just coming into existence so while it was tough for many whites they were still doing better than most of the best colored men, and people like LBJ knew just how to use that to their advantage. It is apparent that many of our modern day politicians have taken a page or two from President Johnson’s playbook and they have added a few of their own that revolve around several ideological beliefs. Belief number one is that “they” are coming for your guns but we are here to protect that right, the second is that “they” believe in killing babies but we are here to protect babies, then there is the one that “they” are trying to take GOD out of our lives but we are here to protect your religious rights and finally “they” believe that it is okay for same sex marriage and partner rights and we are here to protect the natural order that we believe that GOD has deemed. Now add those strategies to the reality that it is tougher today for the people he was referencing to distinguish themselves as better than the best colored man (black man), brown man or yellow man and that is a problem. Consider President Barack Obama, no matter how hard you try, it is hard to convince yourself that you are better than this colored man that is the Ivy League educated President of the United States. So many are left with questioning his legitimacy as a way to validate their value and they become hell bent on discarding anything that has his fingerprints on it even if it is against their own self-interest. There is no doubt that racism was at the heart of it. However; I would argue that President Johnson’s revelation was more about “classism”, and a way for those with money (the upper class) to control the lower working class without the actual system of aristocracy that existed in Great Britain. The colored man was a convenient pawn. And the upper class has continued to manipulate the lower working class by simply refining their strategies to divide and conquer. In the early 1980’s President Ronald Reagan introduced the concept of “trickle-down economics” convincing many lower working class people that they need to allow companies and the well off to do better. Because when they do better it trickles down to them, and unfortunately some poor, uneducated, uninformed working class people have been waiting since the 1980’s for the economics to trickle-down to them. And that is one of the problems that we now face, because we have not seen trickle-down economics and it has to be somebody’s fault and this is where the ruling class has gotten really good, they have now convinced some poor, working class folks that all of their problems are the result of “them” black, brown and yellow people, you can toss in big government just to add a little spice. They and government are the ones taking your jobs, we did not outsource them; “they” are the ones looking for handouts, while the real numbers show that the largest percentage of entitlements do not go to minorities. And here we are at healthcare repeal and replace, every analysis you find suggests that the proposed changes will affect the poor uneducated folks backing Trump and the Republican Party disproportionately, but we march on because “Obamacare” isn’t good, it can’t be. Remember it came from the illegitimate president, so while it will hurt us to repeal it, it has to go. We have to hope that people in this country wake up before it is too late, not just with healthcare but with many complex issues that we face, that they go back and read the words of President Johnson and remember that there are people out there who believe what he believed: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” People, we have to stop emptying our pockets. Samuel P. Martin, is the Publisher of The Birmingham Times, (Alabama) T

Public education continues to be challenged by charter schools, budgetary constraints, salary and retention of teachers, resegregation of public schools, changing demographics of schools, public funding, poverty of students and public will for education. Many people in this country would agree that educating children is one of the most important functions of an effective government. In America, primary and secondary schools are mandated to provide a public education to all children without charge and paid for in part by taxpayers. A common belief among supporters of education is that education is important to the growth and development of citizens, and is the core principle in support of our republic and democracy. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools purport that “all children should have the opportunity to achieve at a high level, and charter schools are meeting that need: charter schools are closing the achievement gap. They are raising the bar of what’s possible- and what should be expected – in public education; and a higher percentage of charter students are accepted into a college or university.” If this is true, we should dismantle every public school and send all students to charter schools. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as many charter schools are not meeting this lofty projection and additionally are not available for many students, as charter schools tend to be very selective. Moreover, charter schools don’t have the same oversight as public schools. School boards, administrators and teachers are charged with the responsibility for ensuring every child has access to a high-quality education. Parents expect accountability from educational oversight professionals to evaluate the success of public schools. There are successful charter schools, but there are many that are not successful and are not held to the same standards of public schools. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supports school choice and believes this is a much better alternative for public schools, an alternative that allows parents to decide where their children will go to school, utilizing public funding. Secretary DeVos said, “We all live with the fact that the current structure of education is outdated and ultimately is not geared toward what is right and best for students. I suggest we focus less on what word comes before ‘school’—whether it be traditional, charter, virtual, magnet, home, parochial, private or any approach yet to be developed – and focus instead on the individuals they are intended to serve. The problem is not how much we’re spending; the problem is the results we’re getting. Charters alone are not sufficient. Private schools alone are not sufficient. Neither are traditional schools.” Secretary DeVos’s argument sounds reasonable. However, a deeper analysis should be undertaken to assess what is not working in underperforming public schools and fix it, rather than taking public dollars and allocating them to an ill-advised voucher system. We agree with Secretary DeVos that what is important is focusing on individual student performance to achieve the results needed for America to compete in a global economy driven by science, reading and math. The concept advocated by DeVos is based on educational choices. Unfortunately, choice alone is pointless when quality is absent from those choices. A key question to ask is: Will the proposed “voucher system” have sufficient dollars for to pay for school choice and be equal to or greater than a taxpayer funded public education? There is no easy answer to public education. Charter schools are not the answer. The secondary question: How effective are charter schools? The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University Institute linked overall improvement of the charter school sector to charter school closures, suggesting that while charter schools as a whole are not getting better, the closure of bad schools is improving the public system as a whole. This fragmented system of education is not what is needed to improve student performance. With a greater focus on improving our communities, we also improve education. In other words, public schools are a reflection of the communities they serve and deserve full public funding, not school vouchers that have not proven to be a reliable equalizer for an equitable public education.

President Trump has made the decision to reverse the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA program), putting more than three-quarters of a million young people at risk for deportation. So how did we get to this point? In 2001 Congress introduced the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known widely as the DREAM Act, to assist individuals who met specific requirements and gave them the opportunity to enlist in the military or go to college to have a path to citizenship. This Act has failed to pass Congress after many attempts. Former President Obama announced on June 15, 2012, that his administration would no longer deport illegal immigrants who matched certain criteria outlined in the proposed DREAM Act. From 2012 to 2017, about 800,000 people have registered through DACA, giving them a reprieve from deportation. To deport these people who have lived as Americans is wrong and places yet another racist stain on America. Have we not learned from slavery, from the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, and from the Trail of Tears when we forced the removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands? This is not the America we believe in. Americans don’t punish children for an act over which they had no control. The DREAMERS were raised in America, and many have completed their education, they serve in our armed forces and they contribute to the mosaic that is America. U.S Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, said it best: “We as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.” He went on to say, “We must confront the nation’s out-of-date immigration policy.” We agree. Our elected leaders have to enact laws that are humane and respectful of children whose parents brought them to the United States. “President Trump’s decision to end DACA should break the hearts and offend the morals of all who believe in justice and human dignity,” said U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California. “This cruel act of political cowardice deals a stunning blow to the bright young Dreamer’s and to everyone who cherishes the American Dream.” Let’s be clear. The president is catering to his base with the ending of DACA and the six-month delay; yet he is right to challenge Congress to take on this tough legislation and do the right thing. A critical question is:” What happens at the end of the six-month period if Congress fails to pass legislation on this important issue?” The stakes are high and this Congress has yet to pass any significant legislation since Trump’s inauguration. The president has said he “loves the dreamers” and yet has made this decision to end DACA and create great anxiety for people who deserve a definitive decision on their future. We don’t argue that there is accountability on both sides. But we strongly believe that the president and Congress need to show leadership and not play political football with the lives of people who have and, if given the opportunity, will continue to contribute to the greatness of America.

My thoughts and feeling about the recent demonstration and violence in Charlottesville and the events that followed are like the rivulets in a delta, crisscrossing in a haphazard way, but in the end, all headed to the same place. That place is that white supremacy, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and violence against people, to terrorize them or because of their beliefs, are all antithetical to democratic values and to human decency. There can be no innocent or good participation in them. The series of events of the week left me swirling. They included: The Charlottesville white supremacist protest and the counter-protests; The increasingly common, protester caused, death by automobile of a young woman; Overt anti-Semitism by the marchers, and a report of the fear and courage of one Charlottesville Jewish synagogue; The emotional, thoughtful and intense reaction of my own Beth El congregation; My reflections on the relative privilege and security of American Jews; The moral ambiguity of response of President Trump—and his dog whistle, or overt, condoning of white nationalism; The toppling of a confederate statue in Durham, and the false rumors of a KKK march; My late-to-the-game understanding of the history of the erection of these Civil War monuments, and their intended statement of white supremacy; and My own, coincidental, trip to the Crockett—Miller Slave Quarters outside New Bern. Monuments: I am convinced that the Civil War monuments were primarily erected as a statement of white supremacy, intended to remind the black residents of the American South of white control and to intimidate them. The Durham monument was erected at the County Courthouse in 1924, in the Jim Crow era of NC. To say monuments should be preserved as a lesson in Civil War history is like saying we should have monuments honoring Hitler to remind us of the horror of the Shoah. Free Speech: Though I vehemently disagree with the tenets of this alt-right movement, I defend their right to have those beliefs, to speak and to march. But they do not have a right to incite, encourage or engage in violence. Honestly, I also have a problem with their right to publicly spew or teach hate, which should be clearly condemned by leaders of all stripes. But if speech doesn’t incite violence, I don’t think it should be officially punished. It’s a harder question for me how private people should respond. For example, is it okay for private employers to fire employees who spew hate on their off time, but don’t bring their hate or violence into the workplace? Jews: We are on the inside and on the outside in America now. We are, relatively speaking, well educated, well-resourced and positioned well to have our voices heard. So, it’s hard to imagine that in this part of the 21st century, Jews will be the target of de jure or widespread oppression. But isn’t this what the Jews in Germany thought in the early 1930’s? Jews rightfully feel anguish at the rise in overt anti-Semitism in America today. So how can we appropriately be self-protective, without putting our angst at the center? We need to respond both self-protectively as Jews and courageously as Americans who have a duty toward people of color, immigrants and Muslims who are more vulnerable and less secure than we are. Perhaps this is an opportunity for an authentic alliance between Jewish communities and other groups that are targets of white supremacist hate. The President: What seems important about his moral ambivalence and his condoning or support of white supremacy, is that we prevent his messages from normalizing these ideas and activities and that we prevent white nationalism from becoming a legitimate movement. Rumors: It seems likely people connected with the people that toppled the Confederate statue in Durham started the false rumors of a KKK march in Durham on Friday. I am not sure what information backed up their tweets, but being part of a just cause doesn’t make it acceptable to be irresponsible. These rumors bred significant anxiety and disruption in Durham. They have a “cry wolf” effect. Next time, we will all take them less seriously, even if next time we need to be taking precautions. Neither side should use social media to spread unsubstantiated rumors. More on Monuments: By coincidence, a week after the march in Charlottesville I spent a morning in New Bern at the Crockett Miller Slave Quarters and the adjacent cemetery, which houses the remains of 522 former slaves and freed men in unmarked graves. Ben Watford has spent his retirement preserving this history. He was informative, and his sincerity was deeply moving. He told us about the realities of slave life; how Union General Burnside took in the thousands of runaway slaves who sought protection during the Civil War; life in the Jim Crow South; his own life growing up poor and black in Hertford County in the 1930’s and 40’s; and how the US Marines carelessly “lost” the grave markers for 521 of the black people buried in the cemetery when they were building Cherry Point in 1941. He told us all of this without bitterness, but with commitment to the need to understand the truth of these times and the human causes and impacts of these events. These physical remains are the monuments that need to be preserved, and we and our children need to reckon with that history. Leslie Winner, former Executive Director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation and former N.C. Senator TWEE

Health insurance companies provide Republicans and Democrats in Congress with inordinately large campaign contributions. The health insurance lobbyists spend lavishly on our US Representatives and Senators. Improved Medicare for All would put health insurance companies out of business and would end the money on which our representatives depend. Thirty-seven countries spend less on health care and have better outcomes than we do in the US. For the most part, those countries have modeled their health care systems on the US Medicare model. Moving all citizens to Improved Medicare for All would be a no brainer. The system is already in place. Here’s what Improved Medicare for All would look like. All citizens would be issued Medicare cards at birth. In addition to covering traditional health care and preventive services, eye care, dental and hearing would be covered. Emergency, hospital and doctor’s office services would be covered. There would be no premium to pay, no co-pays and no deductible. Did you read that last sentence? There would be no premium to pay, no co-pays and no deductible. To get health care services, you would simply present your Medicare card. This is how it would be paid for. Currently, the insurance companies pay about 80 cents of every dollar they take in for health care. Of that 80 cents, 30 cents is spent by the doctor’s office (or hospital, etc.) to seek approval for services or file claims (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53942/). That leaves 50 cents to spend on actual health services. With Improved Medicare for All, approximately 2 cents would be spent by the doctor’s office to file a claim for payment. That leaves 98 cents to spend on actual health care. As outlined in House Bill H.R.676, Improved Medicare for All would be paid for with a progressive tax. The top 60% of wage earners would pay 6%. The remaining 40% (earning about $53,000/year or less) would pay a 3% payroll tax. Employers would also contribute. (http://healthoverprofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Financing-National-Improved-Medicare-for-All-in-the-United-States.pdf) H.R.676 is the Improved Medicare for All bill that has been introduced in the House. More than 100 of our representatives are co-sponsors of the bill. Unfortunately, very few of them are likely to vote for it. In 2012, the health care industry provided our representatives with nearly $59 million in campaign contributions (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09). Our lawmakers are not going to give up that money easily. Our only solution might be to remove all incumbents from office in 2018 and replace them with people who will commit to voting for H.R.676. Remember, they were elected to work for us, not for the health care industry. The time and energy Congress has spent to desperately help health insurance companies with “repeal and replace” is tragic. Improved Medicare for All is the easiest and most logical fix. It just makes sense. Improved Medicare for All is a no brainer. Please read more about it at http://www.pnhp.org/hr676. Beth Jezek Beth Jezek is retired and lives in Asheville

Not very long ago in a county not very far away, I stopped at one of those strip malls, the kind lined with ugly, squat storefronts that were punched out in assembly-line quantities during the late 70s and early 80s. The kind of strip mall where one month said storefront might be a restaurant, the next month a chain video store, the next a tattoo parlor and, finally, just the next in a line of boarded-up windows. This particular strip at this particular time was enjoying a bout of prosperity and featured a pretty good pizza place and a decent Chinese restaurant, separated by, if I remember correctly, an accounting firm. The wife had requested I pick up some something on the way home, so I’d phoned into the Chinese place. I’d parked and was walking toward it when I saw a gentleman lurking around the front of the place, cupping his hands and trying to peer inside. (For whatever reason, a lot of restaurants seem to have a limited budget for lighting. That, combined with the aged, thick plate glass, made it almost impossible to discern what was on the other side of the glass at this particular establishment). Back to the story: This guy was acting hinky as all get-out, furtively trying to peek in, shuffling around, trying again. After years spent working in downtown Asheville, I’d developed a pretty good eye for panhandlers and folks with, shall we say, behavioral disorders. This was different. The man was about my age, was wearing clean if a bit-dated clothes. And something was clearly making him jumpy. I was reaching for the door when he turned to me. Bracing for a tale about his car being broken down and needing money for a bus ticket, this instead is what I got: “Is this the pizza place?’’ A pause as he lowered his head a bit before looking up again. “I can’t read.’’ If you ever start feeling sorry for yourself, remember that story. I sure do. I don’t know how this particular gentleman fell through the cracks, how he came to find himself in the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet without a survival skill most of us take for granted. I didn’t ask. I steered him to the pizza place, got the eggrolls and went home. I did feel like I’d been gut-punched. Do every time I think of it. I guess, in a way, that tale is a bit reassuring. There was a time in this state when education was slipshod. In the earlier part of the 1800s, North Carolina, where huge swaths of the populace couldn’t read, was considered the most poorly educated state in the South. Forward-looking leaders recognized this, took steps to boost public education, and by the outbreak of the Civil War the Tar Heel state was considered one of the best-educated. Education efforts ran in fits and starts after the war and during reconstruction, but boomed at the turn of the century, when the state embarked on a massive school-construction program that churned out the average of about one new school house a day between 1900 and 1910. Longer school years, free textbooks, school lunches and the like were bricks added to the education foundation as time went along. So now we take it for granted. But with a new school year set to begin, we shouldn’t. We should realize it took a lot of effort, foresight and political courage to get to where we are today, enjoying an enviable public education system. And it’s dangerous to assume it will always be there. It took work to build. In a very real sense, much of that work is under assault. All it takes is neglect – ho-humming when funding gets cut or shifted, when civics or art gets dropped to save a dime, for example – to let that work be chipped away. That chipping away has begun. Some of it, seeking alternatives to public schools that are truly broken, is acceptable. Some of it, the folks wanting to switch the pot of public money that represents about two-thirds of the state budget into unaccountable private hands, is largely not. There’s a cottage industry out there that spends its days vilifying teachers and administrators, tarring honorable people, for little reason but a desire to get their mitts on that pot of gold. As school starts back, keep that in mind. We’re fortunate in Western North Carolina to have communities that wholeheartedly back their public schools. Remember to say so to a teacher. Public education is something we can’t afford to lose. The results would be bad. The outcome, at least as I experienced that day not so long ago, looks pretty damned uncomfortable. Jim Buchanan is projects editor for The Sylva Herald. Published with permission from The Sylva Herald.