Treatment of Prisoners May 5, 2004
At a public forum on September 20, 2003, Mark Kirk was asked what moral authority there was for indefinitely holding alleged terrorists in jail, torturing them, and not allowing them to communicate with their families or attorneys. It was six months after the U.S. had invaded Iraq, and close to two years after the conflict in Afghanistan began, and these conditions of confinement were well-known and widely reported. The Bush administration admitted all of them, except that the Administration said our armed forces were not torturing the prisoners, they were just making them uncomfortable. A member of the audience told Mr. Kirk that this treatment was in violation of international law and of universally accepted principles of human rights. Mr. Kirk looked out at the audience and proclaimed that he swore an oath to protect American citizens, and the prisoners are not citizens. His answer, essentially, was that other people are not entitled to humane treatment.
Mr. Kirk received more applause for this statement than for anything else he said that day. When it was pointed out to Mr. Kirk that he was using the same logic that was used to justify inhumane treatment of African-Americans in the days of slavery, of Native-Americans in the early history of our country, of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and of Jews in Germany during Hitler’s reign, Mr. Kirk smirked. It was a chilling experience.
This week, photographs of Iraqi prisoners being abused by U.S. military troops and civilian contractors under their command are being viewed all around the world. The behavior shown in the photographs is shameful and repulsive. Every expert in international affairs seems to agree that our troops in Iraq are in greater danger now that the photos have become public. They also agree that the revelation about our treatment of prisoners has made it more difficult for us to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people, who were already growing hostile to our occupation of their country.
Responsibility for the abusive treatment of the prisoners must be shared by the individuals who committed it and by the leadership that allowed it to take place. Mr. Kirk was on notice six months ago that there was a problem, and he announced publicly that he did not care. He supported the Bush administration’s semantic sleight of hand, whereby they justified abusing prisoners by refusing to call them prisoners. Together, he and Bush sent a clear signal to the military that they were free to disregard the Geneva Conventions that have protected prisoners for decades.
War is hell, but even so, civilized nations understand that once people are in custody, they are entitled to be treated decently. There are many reasons why this is a good policy, beyond the obvious one that it is a moral imperative. Overwhelmingly, our military is made up of decent folk. They are called upon to kill other human beings, something that would be repugnant to them in any other situation. Asking troops to act contrary to their nature puts an enormous strain on them. Part of what allows them to carry out their assigned tasks is the belief that they are acting out of necessity for a just cause and in a humane way. If they learn that their own military commanders are condoning atrocities, they will lose confidence in their leadership and in the nobility of their cause. Their ability to carry out their mission will be severely jeopardized by the damage to their morale.
Our troops also live with the hope that if they are captured, they will be treated decently. They are told that we treat other nations’ prisoners humanely, and that despite occasional lapses, they can expect the same treatment. Now that they and the rest of the world know that we have not been treating prisoners properly, they live with the fear that if they are captured, they may become the object of the same sort of treatment we have been meting out.
Mr. Kirk said he took an oath, but it is not clear what oath he was referring to. The oath he took upon becoming a member of Congress does not require him to defend American citizens. It requires him to defend the Constitution. So does the oath Mr. Kirk took when he became a lawyer. He should understand that the Constitution requires adherence to international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. That lesson was learned at the Nuremberg trials after World War II. He should understand that the Constitution does not authorize brutality. That lesson was learned in the inquiries into the massacre at My Lai during the Viet Nam War. He should understand that our Constitution protects everyone, not just American citizens.
The revelation that American military forces have been abusing prisoners is shocking. The fact that Mr. Kirk condoned the treatment is just as reprehensible.
April 6, 2004 Draft
When the Bush administration first started talking about invading Iraq, they said we would not need to draft Americans into military service. Since then, their stance has changed. Their most recent answer to the question of whether a draft would be needed was non-committal. The situation in Iraq has been deteriorating. Clearly, if we want to maintain our military occupation of Iraq, we will soon have to start drafting young people. Our regular military and our reserves cannot continue this fight indefinitely, and not enough people have been volunteering to replenish our ranks.
Because Bush initially told us we would not need a draft, there has been almost no public discussion of whether we should have one. The time to fully debate this issue has come. If we do not, we will soon find ourselves with a draft that the country may not want.
Drafts always arise in response to particular needs brought on by specific conflicts. Every draft is different. The draft this time will not be the draft some people remember from World War II or Korea or Viet Nam. This time, there will probably be almost no deferments. College, and even some high school students, will have to interrupt their educations while they are in the military. Women and girls will almost certainly be drafted. They are already fighting and dying alongside men and boys in Iraq. Moving to Canada or other countries will probably not be an option. Computerization has made it much easier to stop people at borders, and international agreements are already in place that will prevent foreign governments from sheltering our youth.
This time the children of privilege will be conscripted along with the children of poverty. They will fight and die alongside each other. New names will be added to war memorials in Winnetka and Highland Park and Buffalo Grove. Children we drove to soccer practice and skating lessons and school plays will be shredded by shrapnel and burned by bomb blasts. They will come home on stretchers and in wheelchairs and missing limbs and organs, if they come home alive at all. The tragedy that always attends war will shatter the lives of parents and friends, of lovers and grandparents, of siblings and children. This time, our children will die.
The question of whether to reactivate the draft must be considered in context. In the abstract, many would agree that a draft should be implemented if it is needed in order to defend our country. But few Americans believe the continued occupation of Iraq is necessary to defend the United States. Indisputably, Iraq is not a threat to us at this point. Neither is Iraq a threat to any other country. Iraq is in ruins. Are we there to defend Iraq from foreign nations? Hardly. No country has shown any inclination to invade or harm Iraq.
If we are in Iraq to protect anyone, the only possibility remaining is that we are there to protect Iraq from Iraqis. Do we want a draft so that we can prevent Iraqis from hurting one another? Some would say yes, if there was a strong indication that Iraq would immediately erupt into a bloody, protracted civil war. That is possible, but not particularly likely, and if it is going to happen, it will probably happen however long we stay.
When we leave, the Iraqis will almost certainly organize a government for themselves as quickly as they can. The process may not be perfectly orderly. Creation of a new government rarely is. But it is a process that must be undertaken by the Iraqis themselves in order for the government to have credibility in the eyes of the people. We cannot expect Iraqis, or any other people, to accept a government that is created for them by an occupying military. Americans never would.
It is difficult to predict exactly what form the new government of Iraq will take, but the experience in Iran and the demographics of Iraq suggest that the government will be participatory and representative, somewhat akin to democracy as we know it, influenced by Muslim theology. That is what will happen regardless of when we leave. By staying, we are merely delaying the development of an independent, self-governing Iraq. We will pay for that delay with the blood of our draftees.
We will each decide for ourselves whether we were right or wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. We can reach that conclusion at our leisure. But right now we have to decide whether we want to force unwilling children to kill and be killed in a land far from home. To answer that question, we have to know what they would be fighting and dying for. We have to know, because they are our children. When their draft notices come, they will ask us what to do. We have to know, because if we send them to risk their lives and to take the lives of others, we will have to face them when they return. They will be different when they come back. They will have participated in the horror of war. We have to know, because some of them will not return, or will return injured, and we will have to answer to our own consciences for what we have done to them.
If the Bush administration had told us before we invaded Iraq that we would need a draft, there would probably have been less support for an invasion. Now that a draft is foreseeable, we need to look anew at our foreign policy goals and the methods we are using to achieve them. Whether we originally invaded for oil, or for influence in the Middle East, or for vengeance for the Bush family, or to remove a dictator who was no longer compliant with U.S. wishes, or to reduce terrorism, we have to ask what we are there for now. If the answer is not something that we are willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters for, it is time to get ready to leave. Because if we are not fighting for something we would have our own children die for, we have no right to make anyone else’s children die for it either.
March 31, 2004 Pledge of Allegiance
A couple of years ago, a top student at an area high school was speaking to an assembly of students and parents. His remarks incorporated the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead of saying, “one nation, under God,” he said “one nation, under Allah.” His version showed the same devotion to our country as the more common phrasing. The applause was enthusiastic. People appreciated his statement about diversity and tolerance.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether public schools should have students recite the “under God” version in class. Perhaps the justices will think about the other versions that could be recited. There are places in this country where the majority does not practice Christianity. Would the “under Allah” version be the official version used in those schools?
Some proponents of the “under God” version argue that a child could omit any mention of God. They don’t seem to care about the feelings of the child, who would be singled out on a daily basis as being different, and as being ungodly. In some schools the pledge is led by a different student each day. Should that child be allowed to alter the pledge according to his own beliefs? In some schools, the pledge comes over a loudspeaker from the principal’s office. Should the principal be required to recite different versions on different days? Is there any way to overcome the pressure to conform that comes with such an authoritarian daily reminder of a particular religious belief?
Most people who believe it is their obligation to proselytize have understood for years that the fundamental concept of separation of Church and State prevents them from using public schools to advocate their religious beliefs. Some of them, however, have never accepted this. They keep trying to breach the barriers that the Constitution erects for the protection of the government, the people, and the religious institutions. Hopefully, the court will have the wisdom and the courage to maintain the traditional safeguards of our freedom. One nation? Absolutely. The pledge used to say “one nation, indivisible.” Under God? Let’s leave that discussion in Sunday school where it belongs.
March 28, 2004 Malpractice Insurance
Professional con artists often focus their attention on members of two groups who are seen as easier to defraud than the general public: the elderly and physicians.
Part of what makes physicians easy prey is they tend to be very trusting people. Their work environment requires them to be. They must rely upon nurses, paramedics, and other professionals to give them accurate information. They rely upon other physicians to give them opinions in areas outside their specialties. They delegate tasks to hospital administrators, laboratories, and many others, and as a matter of routine they accept the information they are given. They tend to have pride in their own skills and expertise, and they respect the qualifications of others. Despite their scientific training to be skeptical, the pressures and habits of their work often lead them to accept information uncritically.
The willingness to trust people, which serves physicians well in their medical practices, leaves them vulnerable when they carry it into their financial lives. They have been known to give credence to exaggerated or even imaginary credentials presented by con artists who are trying to sell them unsound investments, and to make decisions based upon baseless promises.
Insurance companies know that physicians can be misled when dealing with non-medical matters, so it has been easy for them to convince large numbers of physicians that it is someone else’s fault that their malpractice premiums have gone up. It is especially easy in states where a small number of insurance companies sell most of the malpractice insurance. Because there is little competition, there is a paucity of information about what is really causing premiums to rise.
The malpractice insurers in Illinois have a particularly easy time hiding the truth from physicians, because the physicians’ professional association is actually affiliated with the largest malpractice insurer. Not only can the insurance company tell the physicians whatever it wants, it can count on not being contradicted by a separate, independent professional association that should be looking out for the physicians and giving them accurate information. No con artist could ask for a better setup.
For more than two decades, insurance companies have diverted physicians’ attention from the real causes of premium increases. The insurers have repeatedly enlisted the physicians’ help in passing legislation which they promised would reduce the insurance companies’ costs and therefore allow them to decrease premiums. The insurers have been so skillful at this, and the physicians so cooperative, that years ago Illinois actually adopted most of the so-called reforms that insurers are now trying to foist on the rest of the country. Despite the legislation, the premium decreases that the insurance companies promised never materialized. Amazingly, physicians have not held the insurance companies responsible. Instead, they have accepted the endless list of excuses the insurance companies hand them, and they continue to let themselves be led in the wrong direction.
Without doubt, physicians have reason to complain about exorbitant premium increases. But they do themselves no good by continuing to allow themselves to be used by medical malpractice insurers that refuse to confront the problem forthrightly. Physicians deserve to be treated with respect. Instead, they are being treated as chumps.
March 11, 2004 Israel
When I was a boy, my Sunday school teachers encouraged me and the other students to contribute dimes to plant trees in Israel. The symbolism of having roots in a faraway land was easy for even a child to understand. The idea that every person could help make the world a better place has stayed with me. The notion that it is an obligation, not just an option, to help heal the world, was central to everything our teachers were trying to tell us. The example that Israel was setting by reclaiming desert land so that it could sustain life and culture was an inspiration. The determination of a people who had narrowly survived the Holocaust was extraordinary.
The trees I planted are now about forty years old. The land of Israel has grown tremendously. Sadly, that ancient and, for many people, holy land still has very serious problems that at times seem unsolvable. Certainly there are no simple solutions.
I have studied and have consulted with a number of people who have great expertise, not only regarding Israel, but also regarding the other states that are Israel’s neighbors. Some of them have spent considerable time in the region. There is little or no support among these people for the notion that the United States can or should even try to dictate the terms of peace to Israel or its neighbors. Such an attempt would inevitably fail. Peace must come from the people and the states themselves, and it will only come when all parties are ready to accept the responsibility of keeping the peace.
This is not to say that the United States cannot play a role. Over the years, with varying degrees of success, the U.S. has helped to assure stability and security in the region. We have promoted cooperation and development. Unfortunately, our diplomacy has not always been effective, or even welcomed.
Most recently, the Bush administration’s preoccupation with Iraq has skewed our efforts in the region. The announcement of a doctrine of aggressive warfare, and the prosecution of an invasion based upon false premises, has severely undermined our ability to be an effective agent for change. States that were skeptical of our intentions are now even less satisfied. Our credibility has suffered. Our military is stretched thin. People who had hoped that invading Iraq would help Israel have seen that the invasion has hurt the United States, the country that has historically been Israel’s most steadfast ally.
Our domestic problems have also diminished our ability to help in the Middle East. The federal government’s deficits have weakened our country’s ability to assist other nations. Joblessness at home leaves us less able and less willing to commit resources abroad. States that would like to have us as a friend find us less able to help than we have been in the past.
Ultimately, the solutions to the Middle East’s problems will come through diplomacy, not by military force. People will find ways to overcome their fears, hatreds, jealousies, and prejudices. The answers will come gradually, and there will be setbacks.
The United States, in order to be an ally of Israel, must continue to be an advocate of peace. We must respect all the peoples of all the lands and must keep in mind their basic humanity. To regain the trust of the world, and to regain our own strength and security, we must use our electoral process to remove from our own government the representatives and executive who have misused our staggering military power and betrayed the public’s trust.
When I planted my trees in Israel, they were probably little more than seedlings. But in a child’s eye, they were mighty pillars reaching from the earth into the sky, providing food and shelter and beauty. The image still lives in my imagination, along with the dream of peace.
March 10, 2004 Television
In these last few days before the primary election, we are deluged with television commercials for various candidates. The commercials last thirty seconds or less. In that time, a candidate can say very little. He or she can only hope to create an impression, and perhaps mention a few issues that the candidate thinks are important. The candidates do not really have enough time however to go into detail about what they think should be done to solve any of our problems.
Many people express frustration with these commercials. They give very little information upon which a voter can base a choice, and they are all so carefully scripted and edited that the candidates end up seeming indistinguishable.
As a candidate, I find that the frustration is just as great. Candidates spend months speaking to groups, writing position statements, answering questionnaires from interest groups and news organizations, talking with voters at train stations, posting messages on websites, distributing literature, and in many other ways trying to let the voters know whatever they want to know about the campaign. But we know that a large number of voters will ignore the wealth of information we prepare and will make their decision at the last minute based on a TV commercial that lasts only seconds.
Thank you for reading this journal entry and others that I post. You are among an all-too small number of voters who are willing to put some effort into making an informed decision.
February 26 Open letter to President Bush
Please stop spitting in my eye and telling me it’s raining. Your clean skies program was not designed to improve air quality, your invasion of Iraq was not prompted by real threats of weapons of mass destruction, your tax cuts were not designed to create jobs, and your proposed Constitutional Amendment is not about the sanctity of marriage.
In a couple of weeks, my wife and I will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of our marriage. We got this far due to the convergence of a lot of factors, including hard work, luck, a supportive family, and because we were basically compatible. It helps, too, that my wife is fascinating, understanding, patient, and pretty near perfect in my view. If there is sanctity in marriage, it comes from the two people who are married, not from some law.
The question, therefore, might be whether two men, or two women, are capable of forming a stable, nurturing, loving couple. The evidence is clear. Same-sex couples are not significantly more or less successful in their relationships than mixed-sex couples, despite the increased problems that narrow-minded people place on them.
I have known a few same-sex couples who have maintained wonderful relationships over periods of many years. You know couples like these too, whether or not you realize it or admit it. I have no idea what these people’s sexual relations are. They may be homosexual or asexual, or they may just be heterosexuals who have chosen to live with each other. I have never thought it was my business, and I know it isn’t the government’s business.
One couple that I was acquainted with always referred to themselves simply as friends. Another couple uses the word partners. It would not bother me if they said they were married. And if being able to say that would make them happy, I see no reason to deny them that pleasure. These are my friends. They are good people. My marriage is not diminished by theirs. Neither is yours.
Your proposed amendment would allow states to grant all privileges to same-sex marriages that they grant to mixed-sex marriages. The only thing you are trying to do is to make sure that society labels some couples as being sanctified and others as being different. I fail to see what purpose this serves, other than to stigmatize and traumatize certain people.
There are plenty of instances in history where the majority insisted on labeling one group as different from another. Sometimes, the “different” people were required to wear badges, sometimes they were walled-off or placed in camps. Sometimes, they had to walk on different sides of the street, or drink from different water fountains, or attend different schools. Sometimes, they were simply exterminated.
There are also instances where marriage laws were used to discriminate against certain people. Not so very long ago, in parts of this country, racially mixed marriages were illegal.
Marriage is an institution that is recognized by many religions, impacted by culture, and licensed by the government. Our laws do not require any religious leader to perform a marriage that he or she does not approve of. Some clergy conduct marriage ceremonies for people of differing religions, and others do not. If same sex marriage is legal, some clergy will choose to join same sex couples, and others will not. Even if your amendment becomes law, I suspect that some clergy will perform same sex marriages. Clergy tend to follow what they consider to be a higher law than the ones our government passes.
In order to protect both government and religion, our Constitution, from the beginning, insisted that government not try to tell religious organizations what they could do. The Constitution also prevents the government from favoring any one set of religious beliefs over another. And yet, that is precisely what you are trying to do.
As for why you have chosen to make this a national issue at this particular time, we can only speculate. Perhaps it is because you are trying to distract voters from job losses, budget deficits, foreign policy failures, and other problems that are threatening your prospects for re-election. Whatever the reason, your proposal is a bad idea.
Instead of trying to make life difficult for people, we should be looking for ways to help people. Instead of writing laws that attempt to force people’s relationships into narrow legal constraints, we should be changing laws to reflect the reality of human existence. Instead of championing intolerance, we should be allowing people to love one another.
You are fond of saying that the world respects America because of its heritage of freedom and respect for individuals. Let’s not amend those things out of our Constitution.
February 22, 2004 Jobs
The Bush administration keeps insisting that the economy is improving. Yet at every campaign appearance, someone tells me that they or someone they know is out of work. Yesterday, a couple told me that three people in their block have recently lost their jobs. The difference between what the President is saying and what people are reporting reminds me of a previous President Bush who lost an election because he could not convince the public that they were doing well when their bank accounts told them otherwise.
The most eerie story about jobs and the economy came to me from a man I talked to today. Until recently his company has been installing factory machinery. Now, he tells me, the only jobs he gets are for disassembly of equipment in factories that are reducing or discontinuing production permanently. His story, and the stories of people who are out of work, are what economists would call anecdotal evidence. Still, these accounts should not be dismissed. Long before the economists compile and analyze the numbers that they use to understand what is happening in the workplace, the workers know what is happening to them.
It is chilling to think that both the President and the man who now removes factory equipment may be right. There may be a slight improvement in the economy, if people like this man are getting work taking apart factories. The money he makes would look the same to the economists as the money he made when he was assembling the factories. The difference is that once he has finished taking everything apart, there won’t be anything left. At that point, he will be out of business, along with all the workers who no longer have factories to work in.
February 17, 2004 Solidarity
A woman who lives in my congressional district told me she bought her house not long ago in a foreclosure. Someone else had not been able to keep up his or her payments. The woman told me that a number of people in her neighborhood had lost their jobs in the last couple of years. The neighborhood, she explained, was not as affluent as some other parts of the district.
The next day, a man in one of the wealthiest parts of the district told me that he knew a number of people in his area who are out of work. Many others who live in his neighborhood, he continued, are afraid of losing their jobs.
Historically, slowdowns have impacted different economic groups unevenly. This time, the hardship seems to be broadly distributed. Factory and construction workers, information technology engineers and technicians, and salespeople and managers are all at risk. Yet despite the fact that they are all in the same situation, people don’t seem to be identifying with one another. Less affluent people assume that people who are wealthier are not suffering. People who are better off know that people who have less than them are hurting, but they don’t display much affinity with them.
Housing prices segregate economic groups in much of this district. Laborers live in one area, lawyers in another. It’s not too surprising that the different groups don’t appreciate each other’s situations; they don’t have much contact with one another. They shop at different stores. They go to different churches. Their kids go to different schools. They even go to different unemployment offices.
The extent to which government policy is contributing to the present economic downturn is being debated as the elections approach. What is certain, however, is that change would be more likely to come about if the people who are dissatisfied would join together to make their demands known.
February 13, 2004 Questions
The second most-frequently asked question people ask me when they learn I am running for Congress is, “Why are you running?” They want to know what issues I am most concerned with and what changes I want to make. I love answering this question. A campaign should be about issues, and people have a right to clearly stated answers.
The only question people ask more frequently is “What are your chances of winning?” Presidential candidates are confronted with this question every day on television. It comes in various forms. Sometimes they are asked whether they will accept a nomination to run as vice-president. Sometimes they are asked if they will drop out of the race if they don’t win the next primary.
The question is pointless. No candidate has ever answered anything other than, “I intend to win.” Candidates all know that if they say anything else, the news will report that the candidate is signaling defeat. The candidate’s campaign will instantly be over.
So, why do even the best interviewers ask such a question? Because it is an easy question to ask. A reporter doesn’t have to know anything about the candidate or the issues to ask this question. It is the equivalent to greeting an acquaintance with, “Nice day, isn’t it?”
Unfortunately, reporting on the contest rather than the issues has accustomed many people to treating campaigns as if they were sporting events, where all that matters is how the game is played and who wins. The issues become just the backdrop. Responding to this, candidates fashion campaign strategies that become less and less about substance, and more and more about style.
I don’t mean to avoid the most frequent question, but would it be all right if I talk about the issues first, and we’ll let the issues determine whether I win?
February 9, 2004 Social Programs
A friend knocked at the door. He has been out of work for a while. He has heard of some work in another part of the country and wants to go see if he can find anything there. He asked if we could give him a ride to the airport. He would like to save the cab fare. His unemployment check doesn’t go very far.
Of course, we will give him a lift. It isn’t much to ask. It’s nice to be asked for help by friends when they are in need.
The discussion of the economy doesn’t often get down to the question of what a person does when they don’t have enough money to even get to a job interview. What happens if you spend a big part of your unemployment check on an airplane ticket and you still don’t get a job?
I was talking to a group of students not long ago. One asked me what I thought of welfare. I told him I’d prefer not to need it. I asked him what he thought. He said it was for lazy people. There wasn’t anything in his appearance, or in anything he said, that made me think he had ever gotten to know anyone who was on welfare. I doubt he has ever been asked for a ride to the airport by someone who was probably embarrassed to be asking. Unemployment isn’t welfare, but need is need. Sometimes people need help.
A few days ago, Mark Kirk once again tried to cut off unemployment benefits. He lost. A few Republicans voted with the Democrats to extend the benefits. I wonder if Mr. Kirk has ever answered the door when someone in need came calling.
February 2, 2004 Future Voters
Over the past few weeks, I have spoken about politics to several groups of high school and college students. The gatherings have been small enough that I could see everyone, and everyone had a chance to ask questions. In each group, a few students are very informed, articulate, curious, and sometimes opinionated. These are the students that every teacher enjoys having in class. They challenge the teacher and leave you feeling that you have connected with them.
There are also the students who you are never quite sure you are reaching. I try to involve them, but it not always easy. Classroom teachers have told me that this is just part of the reality and the adventure of teaching.
I am sure many teachers leave at the end of the day wondering what will become of some of their students, just as I have been wondering. But I have also been thinking about the impact these students will have on the larger society. If they become informed, involved voters, we may be able to avoid unnecessary wars, feed the hungry, and do the others things government should do. If they don’t, someone else will make these decisions. Every teacher probably feels that they are teaching things that will have an impact. I hope I am.
February 1, 2004 Acceptance
This afternoon I heard sermon given by a preacher I had never met before. He spoke in a rhythmic style that is not common where I worship, but which is familiar to many. The audience quickly got caught up in his message and was joyously chiming in with their affirmations. It was wonderful to be there.
Whenever I have visited someone else’s church, temple, or mosque I have been welcomed and often fussed over. If the regulars know I am of a different faith, they usually make an even greater effort to make me feel comfortable.
In recent years, religious zealots of different faiths, both here and abroad, have had their moments in the news. Sometimes they speak of converting nonbelievers, or of pushing them off of holy land. They often seem hostile, intolerant, frightened, and frightening. They sometimes follow their words with violent acts. It is striking how little they resemble the people I have encountered when I have been a visitor to places of worship.
Maybe the people in the news stories really are different from the people most of us run into. Maybe they just seem different because the news distorts them. Maybe they act differently because they know they are in front of the cameras. Which raises the question of how they look when examined under the doctrines they purport to be adherents to. I think the people who have welcomed me, even though I do not follow the same dogma that they do, probably look pretty good. I’m not so sure about the people who reject those who are different.
January 22, 2004 Mars
A few days ago, President Bush said we should establish a permanent station on the moon and send humans to Mars. Few people cheered. The nation was not awed by the prospects of new discoveries and technological spin-offs that would make our lives better. Not that anyone can say these benefits wouldn’t materialize. But most people are looking for more immediate solutions to scientific problems closer to home.
This President halted the development of electric cars, which were already in limited production. They would have cut air pollution dramatically. He decided instead to bet on fuel cells. Eventually, fuel cells could be a good replacement for internal combustion engines, but the experts say it will take another decade or two. Maybe that research could be accelerated with the Mars money.
This President isn’t convinced that global warming is a problem. Scientists all over the globe say it is. Maybe a little of the Mars money could be used to explain the greenhouse effect in terms the President could understand.
This President has changed environmental regulation so that coal burning power plants can keep polluting the air. He says it would cost too much money to install equipment to clean their emissions. Maybe the Mars money could help with that expense.
This President has let hazardous waste sites, some right here in our District, remain untreated. Their chemicals continue to endanger people and wildlife. Maybe some of the Mars money could help with the cleanup.
This President didn’t even mention the worldwide AIDS problem in his State of the Union Address. The closest he came was to say that we should teach abstinence. We may have to use some of the Mars money for funerals.
January 21, 2004 Heroes
I just learned that a fellow I know has been taking care of a foster child. He and his wife decided to take in a boy whose family situation had not been working out. The child was having difficulties and was performing way below grade level for his age. They have been getting him help, and he has been improving.
People who do not know my friend well may be surprised that he would do what he has been doing for this boy. My friend is one of those guys who is gruff on the outside, but a marshmallow inside. He jokes about how good it is to have his own kids grown and out of the house. I know how proud he is of them, making their own way in the world.
Another friend of mine has been helping a boy for years. The boy lives with his family, but they have little money. My friend is a retired teacher. She helps the boy with his schoolwork. He just got a scholarship to go to college, based upon his performance, not his need. Going to college is not something that is taken for granted in his family. I’m sure my friend’s help has made a big difference in the boy’s life.
Unsung heroes, expecting no praise, seeking none, but deserving much. Helping people because they need help. They would probably be embarrassed if they read about themselves in this journal. They inspire me. I hope their story will inspire others.
January 20, 2004
Two women spoke at a meeting of a local chapter of the National Organization for Women. Each had had an abortion before abortion was legal. One told of having to make a clandestine rendezvous in a parking lot. She was met by someone she didn’t know, and she was taken to a house in the country. She never did find out if the person who performed the procedure was a physician or not. When it was over, she felt fortunate to be alive. She had known someone who nearly died from an infection from another illegal abortion. The second woman’s tale was not dramatic in the same way, but it was equally compelling.
Both women were talking about something people seldom discuss except with their closest family members, and not necessarily even with them. They were telling their stories for a reason. They are concerned that a woman’s right to make choices about her body is threatened by conservatives within and without the government. They did not seem to be motivated by any desire to preserve their own options. The first woman told us she was nearly eighty years old. They were concerned with the choices other women will have.
Someone informed the group about an upcoming demonstration at a clinic. Apparently, this clinic is regularly visited by anti-abortion activists. The two sides may be there on the same day. People on both sides of the issue will have friends, and family members, who have had abortions. The anti-abortion protestors may just not know it.
January 19, 2004
The Wall Street Journal reported today that IBM will be moving thousands of jobs to India, China, and other places outside the U.S. for the sole purpose of hiring cheaper workers. The jobs are mostly in computer programming. The foreign workers will get paid about one-fourth the wage that U.S. programmers would get, and IBM expects to save well over one hundred million dollars.
The most interesting part of the article, however, is that internal IBM documents tell managers to avoid telling the employees who are about to lose their jobs the truth about what the company is doing. Managers are instructed not to say the jobs are being sent offshore, even though the soon-to-be-fired employees will be expected to train their replacements. Just how stupid does IBM think its employees are? Do they think no one will figure out what is going on?
IBM recognizes they are about to inflict hardship on a lot of people. Their internal memos instruct supervisors to tell the employees they understand the discharged employees will face difficulties. Why not tell them the truth?
Corporate dishonesty has been in the news a lot lately. A number of indictments have been handed down, and some offenders have pleaded guilty. It is well established that lying to investors is a criminal offense. And if an investor loses money because of a lie, the investor can sue. It seems that lying to employees, however, is just fine.
January 18, 2004 Freedom
When my children were very little we began a tradition of reading the “I Have A Dream” speech on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. We read it at the dinner table, from a now yellow reprint from a Chicago newspaper. Each of us reads a few paragraphs. Though our reading is simple and sincere, we recall the drama of the speech as we’ve heard it delivered by Dr. King.
There are just a few similar occasions in our family. One is on Passover, when we read the story in the Haggadah of the deliverance of the Jews from slavery in ancient Egypt. The refrain, which I know was familiar to Dr. King, was “Let My People Go.”
Two remembrances of people emerging from oppression into a greater freedom. Two tales of leaders and followers, and of people who resisted change. Two epic and important stories of injustice and redemption that carry profound lessons for anyone who cares to learn from them.
Our children are mostly grown now. They spend most of the year at college, far away. They won’t be with us on King day tomorrow when we sit down to dinner. We will read the speech without them, and we will think of them. We will hope that they will pause to think of the great struggle that Dr. King led, and of the struggles still to come.
January 16, 2004 Bush on Trial
Yet another piece of evidence suggests that the decision to go to war with Iraq was a mistake. The U.S. Army War College published a report saying many of the things the anti-war protestors have been saying. In an interview, the author of the report said Saddam was already contained before we attacked and was not a threat to the U.S. He said Saddam was not allied with al Qaida. He said terrorism is a tactic and cannot be eliminated by a “war on terrorism.” He said our invasion has made us enemies, not friends, in the region.
A great deal of other evidence has also come out recently. All of the reports and analyses have shown that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. What he once had was destroyed years before we invaded. Former Treasury Secretary O’Neill published a book saying Bush planned on ousting Saddam from his first days in office and used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse.
If the question were being decided in a court of law, the evidence would be considered not only persuasive, it would be overwhelming, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is puzzling that so many people seem to be ignoring the evidence. They were convinced by Bush/Kirk that war was a good idea, and they refuse to change their minds.
I suppose that shouldn’t be too surprising. It happens in court, too. The verdict doesn’t always match the evidence. Sometimes the judge is biased and refuses to be swayed by the evidence. Sometimes the jury just isn’t paying attention or is led to the wrong conclusion. Sometimes the judge or jurors want the case to come out a certain way, and they simply ignore the facts. Every trial lawyer knows this happens. The Republicans complain about it all the time, when they cry about runaway juries and activist judges. This time the imperfection in the system seems to be going their way.
January 14, 2004 Security
Newspapers and interest groups have been sending me questionnaires to find out my views. They say they will review my answers when they consider whether to endorse me.
One questionnaire asked if America is safer from terrorists now than it was before September 11, 2001. I can’t answer that question. No one can. There is no way to measure overall safety for an entire country. For example, screening of airplane passengers is probably more thorough than it used to be, but passengers bringing weapons onto planes is only one of countless ways terrorists could attack. They could also shoot the planes out of the sky with handheld rockets, as we have seen them do in Iraq. They could launch a chemical attack in a subway, as was done in Japan. Nothing at all has been done about that threat to subway passengers in Chicago. Bad guys could, we were told right after 9/11, smuggle dangerous materials into the country in container ships. The news recently reported that virtually nothing has been done to improve security at the docks.
It is tempting to think that even if we are not totally protected, at least we are better off than we were before. Perhaps, but there is also the possibility that we have antagonized some people who now feel even more motivated to attack us.
All we know for sure is that instead of just an American flag, our flagpoles also now have yellow or orange flags. No one I know has any idea what we are supposed to do differently on orange days, as compared to yellow days. Just be more or less frightened, I guess. In the final analysis, how secure we feel, as compared to how secure we are, is probably all we can measure. From what I can tell, there hasn’t been much change.
January 13, 2004 Displaced Workers
My work as a mediator takes me lots of places. Recently, I was at a distribution center. The first thing I saw was a robot that was sorting things that people sorted not long ago. It was quiet and went about its work unattended. It was a monument to our technological progress.
A worker told me another new machine was due to be installed in a couple of months to do other work that people now do. The new machine would soon mean he would have about twenty fewer co-workers, even after accounting for the machine operators and maintenance people who would be hired.
The Bush/Kirk administration boasts that the economy is recovering, even though people continue to lose jobs. They talk about productivity improving, which means fewer people doing more work. Whether the jobs are automated or sent overseas, fewer people on the payroll is seen as better. Looking only at the short-term financial results of displacing workers, they like what they see. They see the glass as half full, and filling.
The people whose jobs are disappearing can’t even see the glass anymore. Many have lost jobs before. Each period of unemployment depletes their assets and their spirits a bit more.
Displacement of workers has been going on since the invention of assembly line mass production. When we succeed in joining technology with people, the people feel like they are part of the evolution of the workplace. When we fail, the people feel they are being treated as industrial waste products to be disposed of.
What the Republicans seem to have forgotten is that the cost of displacement is not only felt by the displaced workers. Their families suffer, along with their communities. Ultimately, the entire country pays a price.
In the past, we have let worker dissatisfaction and unemployment get so bad that they have led to strikes, riots, higher crime rates, increased drug use, and other disruptions that have hurt the entire country. This time, couldn’t we address the situation before it gets to be a crisis?
January 12, 2004 Overtime
Very few voters in my district are union members, so they probably don’t think much about how unions have helped them. They don’t remember that unions were instrumental in bringing about child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, prohibitions on sexual harassment, and protections of pensions. These and many other benefits of working in America became part of the law, resulting in the protection of all workers, not just of union members.
The Bush/Kirk administration is in the process of eliminating overtime pay. Paying workers extra for overtime is a practice that has been around for as long as I can remember. Requiring employers to pay overtime helps families enjoy weekends together. It keeps a five-day week from turning into a seven-day workweek. It encourages employers to hire more employees, which is exactly what this economy needs right now.
Bush admits that his new overtime regulations will take overtime away from lots of people. He claimed that the regulations would also make some new people eligible for overtime. But his Department of Labor has already published a guide telling employers how to avoid having to pay overtime to anyone new.
Unions don’t need overtime laws. Overtime is already in the collective bargaining agreements they have negotiated for their members. Their members will continue to get overtime even if the law is changed and no one else gets it. But unions are fighting to keep overtime laws in place. They think that all workers, not just unionized workers, deserve a fair deal.
January 11, 2004 War
I spoke the other day with a woman whose son is in the Marines. He was one of the first into Iraq. He is home now, but soon he will be returning to Baghdad. I asked her what he had to say about the experience. She looked sad. “He doesn’t talk about it much,” she said. “He doesn’t talk much.”
The woman had served in the Army after the Vietnam War. Her husband had also been in service. She said she isn’t impressed by the politicians who wave flags and talk about war as a heroic pursuit. She isn’t charmed when the politicians brag about their service records and show off their ribbons. The war is more than politics to her. It is more than speeches and marching bands and monuments and twenty-one gun salutes. She has a son who may or may not come back alive.
January 10, 2004 Fuel Efficiency
I just returned from a weekend visit to my son in college. We had some bicycles on a rack on the back of the car, and we were fighting the wind. I noticed that we got significantly worse gas mileage than normal, probably because of the wind resistance.
I drive a small car. It is usually pretty fuel-efficient. It occurred to me that this must be what it is like for people who drive one of the larger vehicles like an SUV or pickup or minivan. They fill up more often and pay a lot more for gas. They probably get so used to it that they forget how inconvenient and expensive it is.
Somehow as a nation of motorists we have forgotten that the more gas we use, the more air pollution we cause. The more gas we burn, the more oil we have to drill and the more we are dependent upon oil-producing nations. Car ads sell comfort, convenience, style, status, and luxury. They don’t mention the consequences of unnecessary consumption, and we don’t give it much thought.
Maybe when dealers give someone the keys to test drive a new gas-guzzling vehicle, they should require them to stop and put some gas in the tank. That would give people a more complete idea of what they were buying.
January 9, 2004 Jobs
The President wants to allow more foreign workers into the U.S. He says they would not displace American workers, because they will only take jobs Americans don’t want. I wonder what jobs the President thinks there are that people don’t want, if the only alternative is no job at all.
In my work as a mediator, I have spoken with people in some of the jobs I think the President has in mind. One was a woman who cleaned offices and bathrooms after hours. Another was a man who washed cars by hand. Their jobs are not glamorous, and they don’t pay much. But these people wanted to keep their jobs so much that they sued their employers to keep them when they thought they had been illegally fired.
For much of our country’s history, immigration policy has been manipulated in response to the desires of business. Sometimes we needed more workers, and sometimes we just wanted to flood the labor force with new people to keep wages down.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs since Bush became President. It is ludicrous to say we don’t have enough people to fill available jobs. If Bush thinks otherwise, he must not be talking to the people who are struggling to keep their jobs, those who are searching for jobs, and those who have been looking for so long they have almost given up hope.
January 8, 2004 Guns
Two shootings were in the news recently. A police officer shot at a motorist and missed, killing a bystander. The obvious question is whether the officer should have fired his weapon. Maybe it would have been better to let the motorist escape temporarily and try to catch him later. In the second incident, a suburban homeowner shot and wounded a man who allegedly had broken into his house. The not-so-obvious question is whether the homeowner should have fired his weapon. Maybe the burglar would have fled. Maybe all the homeowner needed to do was make some noise, or turn on a light, or call the police.
Some people say the homeowner had a right to shoot. They say he shouldn’t have to consider if other less lethal options were available. Would they feel differently if a neighbor had been killed by a stray bullet? It happens.
People are not allowed to detonate grenades in their back yards. The shrapnel might not stop at their property lines. Why should they be allowed to shoot guns in their living rooms?
Few of us will ever be burglarized. All of us are bystanders. In the debate over the rights of victims and the rights of the accused, isn’t it time we paid more attention to the rights of bystanders? Don’t we have the right to walk down the street or sit in our homes without worrying about getting shot by the guy down the block?
January 7, 2004 An Angry Electorate
I stumbled upon the website of a conservative political group. There wasn’t much that I agreed with. I don’t think that poor people deserve to be poor. I don’t think we could do without free speech. I don’t think that religious fundamentalists are the only people who are qualified to serve in government. Nonetheless, it was good to be reminded what the opposition is thinking.
The overriding theme of the website seemed to be anger. Many Democrats feel angry now, too. It is difficult not to be angry when you have been lied to. The question thus arises: Is there any difference between the anger felt by my supporters and that felt by our opponents? Probably not. Anger is an emotion, not a philosophy. It is natural, and it can be useful. Unless voters are angry, they will never depart from the status quo.
The challenge is to use our anger in a constructive manner – in a way that is helpful to all people, even to those who oppose us. We must continue to champion policies that will bring prosperity to everyone, not just to those who are already well off. We must advance programs that will, in the words of our Constitution, “promote the general welfare,” not just the well-being of a privileged class. We must demonstrate to our opponents that our policies are good for them as well as being good for us. If we do this, anger will subside, and we will all be able to face the future, and embrace each other, with more pleasant emotions.
January 6, 2004 Breast Cancer
I just got off the phone with a friend who is recuperating from a mastectomy. A few years back, she had a lumpectomy. The breast cancer had returned. After the lumpectomy, she was supposed to follow up with a prescription medication to prevent a recurrence of the cancer. I learned tonight that she had stopped taking the medicine because she couldn’t afford to pay for her insurance or for the drugs.
She will never know whether the drug would have prevented the recurrence of her cancer. It might have.
My friend told me her story because she had heard I was running for Congress. She and I don’t normally discuss politics, but she wanted me to know how important it is for the government to change the way we provide health care in this country. She doesn’t want anyone else to have to make the kind of choice she had been forced into.
We have heard that millions of people go without adequate health care because they don’t have insurance. I just talked with one of those people. A real person, someone I know.
Probably many of the people who read this also have a friend who has suffered because they could not get the healthcare they needed. Very likely, they don’t realize that their friend has had the problem, just as I didn’t know. We need to fix the system. It shouldn’t matter if we know someone who needs help. It should be enough that we know there is someone who needs help.
January 5, 2004 Learning from Kenya
I heard on National Public Radio that when Kenya recently stopped making children pay to go to public schools, over a million new students enrolled. It was hard to imagine how any country could have kept children from getting an education just because they were poor. In the U.S., all children are entitled to a free public education. Education is not guaranteed in our Constitution, but it is a right that has been recognized in every state for so long that no one gives it a second thought.
We would not think of depriving children of an education, because to do so would harm them for their entire lives. Yet we deprive children and people of all ages of healthcare if they can’t pay for it. This policy seems even more barbaric than the one Kenya just abandoned. We let people suffer, become permanently injured, and die, rather than provide them with doctors and medicine.
I have proposed that we change this inhumane policy. We should guarantee that every person get needed medical care. The Republicans argue that we can’t afford it, even though plans have been proposed that are not only affordable but might even reduce medical expenses. Most industrialized nations manage to provide care to all their people. Clearly, we could. We have the most robust economy in the world, even in the current recession, and we have a solid base of health care providers. All we lack is the will — and the leadership.
January 4, 2004 A Visit to the Library
Yesterday, I stopped by the Arlington Heights Public Library. They were showing a video about the way the White House misled the American people about the invasion of Iraq. When the video was over, people in the audience had a chance to speak. Hesitantly at first, someone spoke. Others then joined in with their thoughts.
What struck me most was that people are still upset enough to attend such a program. They have not become complacent. They have not given up on the idea that our country is supposed to act in a responsible manner, and that our government is supposed to tell the truth to its own people.
Television commentators have been saying that now that we have found Saddam, the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq no longer interests people. They say that no one cares whether we did the right thing, because we got a good result. The people at the library proved that the commentators are wrong. We are still a country that expects its government to respect its citizens and be answerable to them.
One of the organizers of the event recognized me as I sat in the audience and asked me to say a few words to the group. I was happy to do so. My message was simply that people who care about democracy cannot become discouraged by an administration that prefers not to listen to the people. Those of us who do not want to see the U.S. destroy itself by becoming the world’s biggest bully must work to bring us back to a sane foreign policy.
I saw in the eyes of the audience that they had not given up. They are ready to carry on. They are eager for the hard work that lies ahead.
I have always found good things at the library.
January 3, 2004 Holiday Sales
The news today reported that holiday retail sales were strong in stores that sold expensive merchandise, and not so strong at stores that cater to middle and lower-income people. It appears that the Bush tax cuts did what they were intended to do: they helped the people who least needed help. They put more money in the pockets of people who already had money and did little or nothing for people whose pockets were empty.
The division of our country along economic lines continues. Tuition at top private colleges goes through the roof, and there are plenty of students competing for admission. Students at state universities find themselves in ever more crowded classrooms. Students who cannot pay their tuition graduate with crushing debt.
My district includes people at both ends of the economic ladder. I find myself wondering whether those at the top will be concerned with those at the bottom. There was a time when people with money felt the responsibility to help people who had not been so fortunate. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. visited Winnetka and Glencoe, he raised consciousness and money. People were proud to share with people in need and to contribute to causes that deserved help.
The Republican leadership in recent years seems to frown upon such thoughts. They encourage people with large incomes to hoard their money or to spend it upon themselves. They propose wave upon wave of tax cuts for wealthy individuals. They even went so far as to cut off unemployment benefits the week before Christmas.
We were promised a “kinder and gentler” nation. We are getting a stingier and harsher one.
January 2, 2004 Civil Liberties
I continue reading about the life of Nelson Mandela. I read of the “Terrorist Acts” that the South African government used to suppress dissidents. I read of the government spying on political organizations. I read of its manipulation of news reporting. I read of it not allowing prisoners to visit with friends, family, and attorneys. I read of the government torturing prisoners to obtain information. I am disturbed by how easy it is to compare what the South African government was doing with what our government is now doing in the war on terrorism.
I put down my book and turn on the television. A news analyst mentions that Mr. Korematsu has joined the challenge to our government’s treatment of so-called “enemy combatants,” who are being held without access to attorneys, without being charged, and without bail, in a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Korematsu was the person whose challenge of our imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The parallels are chilling.
I open a magazine and read that the U.S. Supreme Court will review a federal court decision that the detention of “enemy combatants” is illegal. The article says that many of the attorneys for the government realized the detention was illegal, and they tried without success to get the administration to change its policy.
I think about how difficult it is to interest people in these issues. Few people living in the affluent areas of my district imagine that they will ever personally be touched by repressive governmental actions. They don’t imagine that these policies will affect anyone they know, and they are seldom concerned about these things happening to people they don’t know.
Some of the people living in the less privileged parts of the district understand these issues on a more personal level. But they have little contact with those at the other end of the district.
I recall my days as a practicing attorney. I recall how surprised affluent clients could be by the way they were treated when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, or when their children were charged with possession of marijuana. I remember how shocked parents were with the way they were treated by government investigators when, in the midst of a divorce, an angry spouse maliciously phoned in a tip that they had abused their child. Civil liberties is a term that means little to most people, until it is their liberties that are taken away.
January 1, 2004 Nelson Mandela
New Year’s Day! The campaign begins anew today, as it does every day.
Today I am reading my second book about Nelson Mandela. I was prompted to read about Mandela because, on two occasions, I heard my opponent Mark Kirk compare Mandela to Yasser Arafat. He was arguing that Arafat supports terrorism and is standing in the way of peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. Mandela, he said, when he achieved most of what he had been working for, changed his ways, and became a statesman. Arafat, he asserted, was offered most of what he has been working for, but refused to accept the compromise and remains a terrorist. According to Kirk, Arafat has “failed the Mandela test.”
My opponent seemed to imply that Mandela had been a terrorist. It was not the image of Mandela that I had in my mind. When I think of Mandela, I think of the man who led the movement that resulted in the end of racist apartheid government in South Africa and helped establish majority rule. I think of the man who was awarded the Nobel Prize. I think of a person who spent twenty-seven years in jail, sacrificing his own freedom for the freedom of an entire country. I think of someone who is generally spoken of as a hero. So, when my opponent cast Mandela as a terrorist, I decided to see if the description had any basis in fact.
The issue of how history should regard Mandela is not likely to be any part of the campaign. But my curiosity has been piqued. I want to know more about Mandela, and I want to understand my opponent. I am trying to unseat an incumbent congressman. His votes have not reflected the will of the people he is supposed to represent. He has been on the wrong side of most issues. He has shown no leadership. For all these reasons, I will try to replace him. So, in my effort to understand my opponent, I will begin with the question of whether he is fairly depicting Mandela.
