The Land of Opportunity?

We all know them.  The stereotypical, cliché sayings about America.  Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, The Great Melting Pot, A Land of Opportunity.  These sayings stir national pride in most Americans.  However, are these just old, crazy sayings that we say in order to hearken back to some bygone age of glory and nationalistic fervor? Is America really a place where an individual can come and be free?  Do we really cherish the sacrifices made by our heroes, here and abroad?  Does America really embrace diversity?  Do we as a nation celebrate each other for our differences?  Is America the place that provides equal opportunity for its citizens to succeed?  I think that these are very valid questions, not only for the nation as a whole, but for us personally.  I want to beg you not to misread me here.  I am not saying that I hold disdain for the many freedoms that I have under the Constitution.  Moreover, I am definitely not saying that I do not appreciate the sacrifice that thousands of men and women make daily so that I can enjoy these freedoms. I’m simply asking questions about how America really works.

Now, through the process of reaching my dream of making it big (in social work) (sarcasm), I have constantly been challenged to think on these questions.  Social Justice is one of the main Social Work Core Values.  Thus, in relation to this post I am rather biased on this hot button issue for myself, because I think that this is an important issue that should be talked about on all levels.

America.  This brings up a lot of different things for a lot of different people.  Should it ever be thought of as cruel, oppressive, or unfair?  I personally don’t think so.  Personally, I think that America should be thought of as a beautiful country, one that provides a level ground for individuals looking to better themselves.  A place that one can come to and find security and refuge from any circumstance.  It should be thought of as a country that takes care of its own.

Henry Kissinger recently posted something online that was in the same vein of things I have seen popping up all over social media.  These posts have been addressing our current Welfare system and how, in essence, they are sick and tired of having to pay for “takers”, individuals who use the system to support themselves when they are fully capable of getting a job.  This is such a fascinating perspective.  The assumptions that fuel this line of thinking are mostly based on personal experiences.  Whether these are people that we know/heard of that “use” the system, or simply just our life experiences and how we have seen life work.  Usually I would be like, “hey that’s your opinion and that’s cool,” but it really isn’t.  Webster defines greed as “the selfish desire to have more of something (usually money)”. People don’t like the “takers” because it’s their thought that they are having their money, time, or whatever, taken from them just for people to leech off the system. I do not think that this is an inherently bad quality to have the ambition or hunger for more, but it definitely is a slippery slope to desire things for personal gain at the expense of others. (In broad historical scopes, see Jackson and the Cherokee, Napoleon, Hitler, Cortez, Escobar, etc.)

As a white, middle class, male who lives in a suburban/rural area, my life has been pretty easy.  There was nothing really standing in my way of the things that I wanted to do with my life.  Even when I was in middle school, college was just a given.  That is what you do after high school.  And when we take a look at my primary and secondary education it was pretty darn good.  The teachers were all well-trained and we had fantastic learning materials: new books, mobile laptop carts, Smart boards with projectors in almost every classroom.  I mean our school was decked out with some pretty sweet things that made learning fun and interesting.  The staff of the school was fantastic, really loved doing their jobs and had a passion for the students.  This education really prepared me for what I would experience when I eventually attended college.  If this was the same across the board for every American, then yes Henry, it would be unfair for you to pay to support those who have had the same amount of chances as you, in similar circumstances.  Unfortunately for everyone, this is not even close to reality.

The fact of the matter is that we all know of schools where we would never want to send our kids, neighborhoods in which we would never want to drive through, let alone live in.  And we all know the “kind of people who live in those neighborhoods, and go to those schools.  And they deserve it, don’t they?  If they would only get a job, then they could move out to the suburbs, and then their kids could go to better schools.  And then I could finally stop paying for their housing, food, health insurance, addiction, etc.  Since they do not contribute, then they should bear the full weight of their incompetence, why should we that work, and work hard, pay for their laziness or petty wants?  If they actually wanted to be contributing members of society, then they should have their basic rights to survival, correct?

I want to take us back to the questions in the beginning, is everyone starting from the same place?  Let me set it up for us.  You live in the city, and we aren’t talking Upper Manhattan here. For those of you Susquehanna Valley’ers, think Reading or Altoona or Allison Hill in Harrisburg.  You have been born into a family without money.  So naturally your apartment complex or project is not adequate for your, or anyone’s needs.  Over-crowded, poor maintenance, “bad part of the neighborhood”, the odds are stacked against you.  Your mom works two minimum wage jobs in order to support your family, because your dad walked out on your family before you were born.  Your mother also had to drop out of high school when she was pregnant with your older sibling, thus limiting her potential job opportunities.  Even though she works two jobs it is still not enough to pay for everything, so you have to stand in a different line than your friends in school for your lunch.  Because your mom does not have time, you have never applied for a Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  So, when you get sick you don’t go to the doctor and have to miss extra days of school.  Because of your tardiness, due to lack of transportation, and persistent inability to focus, you are tracked as needed extra support.  As a result of this you then are separated from your friends in school because you have to attend special programs and classes, so that your school does not lose their already scarce funding.  Little does the school know, your lack of attention in class is a result of never having enough to eat.  The embarrassment of being the “poor kid” that gets the “unfair” free lunch is too much for you, your friends mean the world to you.  The school is so concerned about test scores and funding because they are already working with textbooks that are over 10 years old and in poor condition, and their class sizes average 40 or more students.  The teachers are usually either right out of college or those that other schools do not want, so dealing with “problem children” is usually not high on their priority list.  (There are still some great teachers that work in inner-city school districts) Because of your age and wanting to fit in, you begin rebelling as you grow up.  You get mixed up in the “wrong crowd” and your school work suffers even more.  Your home life is as volatile as ever.  Your mother is doing what she can but she is not around enough to really be a contributing part of your life and your older sibling wants nothing to do with you because you are not cool enough to hang out with them.  As a result you begin to look for love in other places.  Because of your ignorance regarding safe sex and inability to obtain contraceptive devices, you start a family as a teenager.  Rinse and Repeat the whole process.  Is this your fault?  Really?

I know what you’re thinking, and you’re not wrong.  This is a completely fabricated story and there are a lot of things that might not be true, as this point is only made for the sake of argument.  But there are a lot things that are more common than we think.  And the bottom line is when we see someone, do we ever really know what they have had to deal with to be in the place that they are.  The answer is no.  This story is an example of how it may be out of someone’s control, or capability to really and truly “pull themselves up by their boot straps.”

This brings me full circle.  Do any of us pull ourselves up by the boot straps?  I mean the only person that I can think of that truly did this would be like, Abe Lincoln, who wasn’t as underprivileged growing up as we are led to believe, and he was still white.  The rest of us receive immense help from the government.  Public Schools, tax breaks, subsidies for big business, banking and SEC regulations, etc.  Does that mean that because you were born into a certain family, you are better than others?  Is that what it comes down to?  Because your family makes more money, you’re a better person?  Because your school was funded properly, you get to judge?  Because you have white skin, you get to discriminate?  Because you were given what you need to succeed, you can expect success from those who weren’t?  I think that we need to check ourselves as a nation. We need to think to ourselves, have I really thought about, researched, or talked to anyone who has had a different experience in life than I have?  What if the tables were turned, would I want to be judged and discriminated against for things that are outside of my control? How can I really know how I would react in the same scenario without actually being placed in it?

Talk to your friends about this.  Talk to people who think different from you about this.  Talk to everyone about this.  Think about these things, and keep an open mind. Because someone else has had a different experience and opinion than you, doesn’t mean you should slam the door shut on them. To wrap up, how do we make America the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave,  a true and celebrated Melting Pot,  a place where everyone can experience the Land of Opportunity? I personally don’t have the answer to this, but through open-minded dialogue and taking appropriate action, I think we can strive toward this perceived goal.


Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

The assumption that the title of this post is a feasible or fair debate is preposterous. Edward Snowden has certainly achieved fame and celebrity while proportionally drawing the ire of the U.S. government. But, let’s simplify this discussion while attempting to tone down the sensational status it has achieved in the 24 hour news cycle. First, it is paramount to explore the operational definitions of the charge of traitor along with the appropriate conceptualization of a heroic act. Secondly, and most importantly, what is national security? Do we have that internal debate in our households or on our congressional floor? Has it become an easily digested buzzword such as terror or freedom or patriotism. We will keep it short, but keep it brutally honest. We will keep it nationally focused, but individually driven. After all, we are the people and the government serves us.

A traitor is one who betray’s another’s trust. Alternatively, a traitor is a treasonous actor. Treason’s roots are found in monarchical England where the necessary and sufficient conditions for the charge consisted of three criterion: prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. The paternalistic derivation of this legal clause is inherently understood and implemented from the perspective of maintaining central power in the king’s capacity. In America’s case, the intelligence community is the king of knowledge regarding the PRISM program and knowledge is, in fact, power for it is the most effective way to centralize control. So, Edward Snowden did in fact commit treason, but not against a free democracy, but rather, against a streamlined power structure of intelligence. That community, in which Snowden briefly participated, did have its trust betrayed by Snowden. However, that trust was betrayed in the interest of committing treason against a king who maintained absolute power over liberty and individual rights. Snowden is levying war against that unjust king, but the battle he desires to fight is similar to a type of revolution that our American heritage celebrates dating back to 1776. In that era, a group of treasonous individuals gathered to create the U.S. Constitution and are now referred to as the Founding Fathers, not traitors. Snowden was also adhering to the king’s enemies in this case-us, the people. How can this whistleblower be called a traitor when, in order for that definition to apply, he would be betraying Americans when, in fact, it was the rights of individual Americans he was hoping to preserve?

Because I drew a parallel with Snowden’s actions and those of the Founding Fathers then he must be considered a hero if he is a not a traitor. This assertion however is almost more unsettling than the ignorant suggestion that he is a traitor against the American people. The reason being is that this program is so unconstitutional and so absurdly illegitimate and unjustified that his choice is the intuitive and rational one. He is not a hero because heroes do extraordinary things that others are not capable of. We are all capable of recognizing the atrocities the NSA was committing against our personal freedoms. We are all capable of channeling the indignation he felt that led him to leak this classified information. His actions have taken a lot of courage and unfortunately might very well lead to harsh consequences in their wake, but his rationale is logical and simple. When something is wrong, fight it, when something is unjust, bring it to justice, and when something needs to be shared so that the centralization of power over information can be made accessible to each individual, leak it.

But, of course, Snowden’s actions have compromised national security. False. A nation’s security is only as solid as the foundation laid by its people’s trust in government. Security requires individual rights and protections more than it requires hacking skills or nuclear warheads. National security cannot be accepted as a quantifiable spectrum because those who are in charge of its maintenance are simultaneously in charge of defining and redefining its essence. We experienced an incredibly similar devolution of rights concerning terror following 9/11. We were told to fear terror by the same information sources (the government) who were responsible for educating us on what terror in fact was. That is an unacceptable relationship between government and people because it is tyrannical relative to the censored flow of information. National security and terror are words connoting fear. Fear, from the individual perspective, is truly manifested in a situation where the government no longer serves the people by no longer respecting their rights.

Snowden is not O.J. Simpson in the White Bronco on T.V. where the manhunt is as captivating as the purported crime. His actions were meant to provoke a meaningful discourse about individual freedoms and the government’s role in controlling information. However, it is our responsibility to engage in that civic duty. Instead of turning on the Evening News to see where Snowden may be flying to tonight, think about what caused him to take the risks he has taken. National Security was not compromised, our rights were compromised and the government backlash against this leaker is out of embarrassment for their actions. It does not represent an about face on their programs which have spanned over both a Republican and Democratic administration’s reign. Snowden was not treasonous to the American people, nor did he draft a new Constitution to base our political and legal lives after. Instead, he acted as all Americans should when in his unique situation. He should be applauded for doing what I hope all of you would recognize is necessary and just, he should not be vilified or extradited. Snowden: Traitor or Hero? No, he is an individual who is willing to risk suffering consequences to protect his individual rights-all American’s individual rights.