December 14, 2008

Revitalizing The Power of the Baby Boomers

Filed under: Political Stuff — admin @ 10:50 pm

As baby boomers, we have been spoiled all of our lives. When we were teenagers, the world took note because there were so many of us. Our music, our beliefs, our fashions, our styles dominated the culture of the age. When we took to the streets to protest the war in Vietnam and to support the Civil Rights Movement, we found a ready audience. Television came into its own and we splattered ourselves and our causes across the living rooms of America.

For some of us, that was the best of times. We were young, idealistic, and nave. We truly believed that we were making a difference. We were creating a future of hope, justice, fairness, and peace.

As we move towards retirement age, we look around us with diminished hope, broken promises, reddened eyes, and cynicism. Where is the new world order we so desperately sought? In the violence-filled streets of Baghdad? In the ruins of the World Trade Center? In the hills of Afghanistan? In the political condemnation of gay rights, resistance to a woman’s right to control her own body, the death of Affirmative Action?

We look back in longing to the days before political assassinations turned the world upside down. Life was, indeed, so much simpler then. Involvement in revolution is for the young and nave who, no matter the century, no matter the nation, no matter the cause, see only the possibilities and none of the difficulties that maintenance of profound social change demands.

Can we keep our ideals alive in the muck and mire of reality?

If our ideals are still there, perhaps hidden beneath the layers that decades of responsibility, work, fatigue, and the need to take care of personal matters have deposited, we can resurrect them. We can revitalize their tenets with the bolder judgment and broader understanding wrought by experience and maturity. We can still return to the fight we abdicated with the demise of the Great Society.

1. Political action.

We now know that marching in the streets has less of a lasting effect than the power of the voting booth and the closed door deals of professional politicians. Although many have fallen along the way, including some of the best and brightest, the boomers still have tremendous numbers and therefore significant potential political power. As our involvement in work and careers starts to taper off, we can use our newly found time to participate in the political process: listening, organizing, contributing, and supporting those who represent that new society we still so desperately seek. For us, the infringement of civil liberties generated by the Patriot Act and the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay demand that questions be asked, motives revealed, and expected outcomes honestly assessed. We can still throw off the conservative shackles of age we have unwittingly donned and re-enter the fray: as candidates, as volunteers, as individuals who demand accountability and justice from those in power.

2. Community action.

Supporting and fighting for civil rights no longer requires travel to the Deep South nor marching through the streets. The struggle now permeates all levels of our society: the workplace, the schools, the churches, the home. Community involvement may range from active support, to speaking out, to neighborhood organizing, all in the knowledge that our better world starts right outside our front door. Racial profiling, bias against those of Middle Eastern descent, and widely administered wiretaps confront us in our own corner of the world. An African-American child in a schoolroom without enough books, without internet access, without afterschool programs, without personal safety and a quiet academic atmosphere, is as cheated of his natural human heritage as his forefather in the back of the bus. A gay couple denied the social and financial benefits of married straights are as much the victims of prejudice as their forbears in their proverbial closets. A poor urban neighborhood without basic resources: libraries, museums, music, culture, is as disadvantaged in the modern age as in the shameful shanty towns of old. We may feel a lack of power to sufficiently effect a national change of direction but in our local communities the power is there for the taking if we choose to assert our energies and our concerns.

3. Personal witness.

We need to practice constant vigilance to bear witness to our beliefs. We must repeatedly re-assess ourselves to ensure that we have not inadvertently bought into the bias and prejudice that colors so much human thought. We cannot stand silent while others talk or joke about ethnicity, or religion, or sexual preferences. The need to get ahead does not require the sacrifice of all that we hold dear — the winner of the rat race is, after all, a rat. We must consider our families and ensure that our children are fully exposed to the potential and worth of every individual, no matter how different from us they may appear. Our expectations and demands of coworkers and subordinates needs to be fair and consistent, regardless or race, gender, or cultural differences. We can stand up and speak out, letting all know that nothing less than equal opportunity and fair evaluation will be tolerated in our personal sphere. We will continue to look for quality of character, knowing that little else matters.

As each generation ages, the qualities it represented in youth tend to dissipate. With the addition of multiple personal and occupational responsibilities and the acquisition of assets and at least a degree of wealth, the earthquake of social revolution is no longer a promise but a threat. We jealously guard what we have worked so hard to obtain. We become a force for conservancy rather than a force for change.

The baby boom generation has the potential to shatter that familiar pattern. Born on the cusp of the most horrifying war the world has ever seen, we continue to represent an opportunity for the world to evolve, for mankind to rise above the baseness of his bestial nature and to internalize the human capacity for true civilization. As we enter the autumn of our lives, we are presented with the opportunity to finally, and lastingly, make a difference. It is up to us to stand together now, as many years ago we stood in the streets of Chicago, Washington, and Birmingham, for the rights and liberties of all.

EzineArticles Expert Author Virginia Bola, PsyD

Virginia Bola is a licensed clinical psychologist with deep interests in Social Psychology and politics. She has performed therapeutic services for more than 20 years and has studied the effects of cultural forces and employment on the individual. The author of an interactive workbook, The Wolf at the Door: An Unemployment Survival Manual, and a monthly ezine, The Worker’s Edge, she can be reached at http://www.virginiabola.com

Newspapers And Political Bias

Filed under: Political Stuff — admin @ 4:09 pm

Almost every weekday, for the last thirty some years, I have purchased three or four newspapers and read them at lunch time. I do this in order to relax and in some cases learn something. One of the ‘newspapers’ I buy is the Los Angeles Times and I am going to use that ‘newspaper’ as my example for this article. In my opinion the Los Angeles Times has always been a somewhat liberal paper. I never minded that as some of my views were also somewhat liberal. A while back, however, the paper was purchased by the Tribune Company and the paper went from taking a slightly liberal slant to taking a very liberal slant and it went from reporting the news to trying to influence the news. Now, the paper seems to have gone off the deep end and is trying to control the news and brainwash it’s readers.

As long as I can remember, newspapers have used their front page to report hard news, news that they considered to be of great importance to their readers. The Los Angeles Times and many other newspapers now seem to be using their front pages to influence their readers. Now, in addition to slanting their stories to the left or right, many newspapers are slipping op-ed pieces (I am all for op-ed pieces as long as they are printed in the op-ed section of the paper and listed as opinions or editorials. I like reading other people’s viewpoints. After all, I might learn something new.) into the news sections of the paper and even onto the front page.

Today, December 23, 2005, the paper ran, on the front page, above the fold, near the center, a piece headlined “GOP Hitting Limits of Agressive Tactics”. To be fair the paper did insert in smaller type, above the headline, the words “News Analysis” (I wonder how many readers know that ‘news analysis’ is just another way of saying editorial opinion. I also wonder how many people even read the words ‘News Analysis’.). This piece was written by a ‘Times Staff Writer’ who as far as I can tell, has never written a hard news item in his life. The only pieces, written by this writer, that I have ever read have been anti Republican, anti Bush and anti anyone and everyone who is not to the far left, opinion pieces. This piece slams the Republican Party and the Administration, praises the Democratic Party, gives a few partial statistics, lists several half truths and gives the writers opinion as to how the Republican Party is out to harm the environment, destroy the poor, overrun the Democratic Party and ruin this country. It does everything but report news, yet it is made to appear as a hard news piece. I would not mind this piece if it were published in the op-ed section of the paper (Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.) but, it offends me that it was published on the front page where news items belong.

Right (pardon the pun) below that piece is a piece headlined “U.N. Hit by a Bolt From the Right”. This piece about, John Bolton, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, seems to be innocuous, but if you read the whole piece you come away with the impression that Ambassador Bolton is a bullying right wing trouble maker who is ruining our relationships with our allies and with the U.N.. This piece is again an opinion or editorial. It is not hard news or even news. It would have been okay in the op-ed section, but it did not belong on the front page.

Neither of those pieces belonged on the front page. The only reason to have them there, is to attempt to influence the thinking of the paper’s readers.

The foregoing are just two examples of how the paper is trying to control public opinion. Whenever the paper publishes something good that has happened in Iraq or Afganistan the insert, into the piece, several bad things. Everytime they publish something good about a Republican, or even a moderate Democrat, they insert something negative. Negative pieces about Moderates and Conservatives are published on the front page or near the front and positive pieces are published near the back. Positive pieces about the left are published on the front page or near the front and negative pieces about the left are published near the back. In today’s paper they published a piece about the President defending our spy program. Where did they publish it? On the last page, page 32, of the national news section. They also published a piece about the President okaying troop cuts in Iraq. This piece was published on page 3 of the national news section, however, in the piece they also mention that there have been 2,150 U.S. deaths in Iraq, that a soldier was killed by a bomb and that the President “is under growing pressure to pare back U.S. troops in Iraq”. Again, the paper can’t print something positive without printing something negative, when it comes to the President.

By the way, who is putting pressure, on the President, to ‘pare back the troops in Iraq’? I know that I’m not. I don’t know enough about what is needed in Iraq to make that type of suggestion. As far as I can tell, most of the ‘pressure’ is coming from the far left, their spokespeople, the people that have bought into their ranting and the ‘talking heads’ that love to go on talk shows and show everyone how ‘in the loop’ they are, even though they usually turn out to know less than we do. Maybe we should pull back troops and then again maybe we should not. The only people that the President should be listening to are his Generals and certain people in the intelligence community, the Department Of Defense and the State Department. He should not be listening to his opponents (They have their own agenda.), reporters, publishers or the Hollywood Elite. They may think they know everything, but they don’t.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.