HERE’S TO THE UNDERDOG

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

.

TO THE

HARD WORKING AND COURAGEOUS

MEN AND WOMEN OF LITTLE CLOUT

WHOSE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS BUILT

AND DEFINES THE CHARACTER  

OF THIS GREAT NATION

*

HERE’S TO THE UNDERDOG

.

Here's

to the magnificent underdog,

majestic--just look at that face;

who struggle each mile, yet, manages a smile,

while the powerful spits in his face.

.

Yes,

a toast!

To the illustrious underdog,

whose courage holds chaos at bay;

for the unshakable steel, which makes up his will,

to stand-up through yet one more day.

.

Let’s hear

a cheer!

For the tireless underdog.

His heart firmly girdered in place;

who finds just enough to survive when life's tough,

while the "powerful" stands in disgrace.
.

Let us

cherish

the heroic underdog,

who walks water routinely each day;

who braves lion Jaws and shun all applause,

then quietly goes on his way.

.

.

*

*

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

A Stately Old Ship

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A STATELY OLD SHIP

The stately old vessel limps weakly towards port
As the rolling storm begins;
Veracious vermin gnawing
at its rotting hull,
Destroying from within.
.
Colors that once flew proud and strong
In distant and exotic lands,
Now flutter shamefully, tattered and torn,
Reflecting the flaws of "flawless" men.
.
With cheers of fading greatness,
True patriots are scorned;
Demagogues are lifted aloft,
While the stately ship we mourn.
.
But the old vessel was made of sturdier stuff
By a different kind of man;
Storms and vermin and rotting hulls
It can easily withstand.
.
Waiting in port, a fresh new crew
Now eager to take command;
A new coat of paint, and fresh colors await,
This proud ship of state's next stand.

In memory of
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

.

With His Dying Breath, He Fought For A Better America, and He Was Instrumental in Getting Sen. Robert Byrd (a former Klan Member) to Leave His Death Bed to Appear in the Senate to Support the First Black President of the United States.

.

 We wish you calm seas, and steady winds, my friend.

 

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Statesman.

 

.

.
Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

 

Sphere: Related Content

CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT? . Anyone who can't answer the above question in the affirmative couldn't have been raised in the Black community. As ashamed as I am to have to admit it, it is clear to anyone with eyeballs that the African American culture is matriarchal by it's very nature. That said, now I'm supposed to start explaining all of the conditions beyond the Black man's control that led to this state of affairs, but the fact is, I'm not predisposed to lying, so I refer you to Black Entertainment Television (BET) and you can be the judge. . Ok, had enough? Now that you've viewed the misogynistic subculture that has all but seized the soul of the young Black male, it has to be clear that any woman who can manage to raise well rounded, productive, and stable children--by herself--in such an environment can do anything. . So, of course a woman can be a good, even great, president. But I don't count Hillary Clinton among those women. Hillary, and many other so-called "feminists" of her generation, suffer from seriously misguided views on what it truly means to be a strong and independent woman. They actually diminish the meaning of womanhood by embracing the position that the only way a woman can truly be strong and independent is by being more like a man. . She, and many other modern women have dedicated their entire lives to the proposition that the traditional role that women have played in society is something less than what a modern woman should aspire to. I firmly disagree with that position. While I think that a woman should be free to compete with a man in any and every area in this society, I also think the role of the traditional "housewife" has been severely undervalued in this society. What our society looks upon as a "mere housewife" is actually a mother, a psychologist, a nurse, a chef, an economist, an interior designer, and in many cases, a sex therapist for a philandering husband--and society has been going downhill every since these women were convinced that what they did wasn't worthwhile. . Remember Donna Reed? Women of Hillary's ilk tend to look down their nose at women like that, but consider this--there was no such thing as a drive-by on Donna's watch. She created a stable home environment that served to stablize society as a whole. She did more for society from her family's house, than a Hillary clone could ever do as president from the White House. The problem with the Hillary kind of women is that they fail to recognize that fact. They see women like Donna as "quaint", and completely fail to realize that women like Donna are directly responsible for who, and where they are today. So it's not Hillary that I dislike, or her chosen path in life; it's the condescending attitude of Hillary-type women towards homemakers--and I don't think I'm alone. Hillary hasn't personally done a thing to deserve the hostility that she engenders in many Americans. While much hostility is directed at her, it's not about her, it's about what she represents--the degradation of America. . The American people don't have a problem with women seizing the opportunity to express their creativity and potential as human beings, but what they do resent is a handful of abitious women attempting to further their personal goals by convincing a generation of housewives that they're being less than productive by not entering the workforce to take up arms against men. Prior to these women entering the workforce, one income was sufficient to comfortably support a family. Now, a woman must work whether she wants to or not just for most families to survive, because once working women put more money into circulation, the business community simply doubled the cost of living. So what we're left with as a result of this mass exodus of housewives into the workforce is a rise in the of the cost of living, women being forced to juggle family and a fulltime job, latchkey children, a hoard of incorrigible teenagers, a rise in workplace indiscretions, failed marriages, and skyrocketing crime--a net loss anyway you look at it. . But of course, now I'm going to be accused of wanting women to remain barefoot and pregnant, but that's not at all the case. Women should be free to go into whatever profession they choose, but if they choose homemaker as their chosen profession, they shouldn't be denigrated as "barefoot and pregnant", because as our current situation clearly demonstrates, they are actually the backbone of this society. . This country is falling apart because we allowed the "feminists" of the sixties to sell us a bill of goods. When these women chose to pursue professions and then ran into sexism in the workplace, instead of addressing the problem within the workplace itself, they decided to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement in order to sop up some of the gravy that the eloquence of Martin Luther King had stirred. But in order for these White, middle and upper class women to make an effective case--many of whom, living comfortably, and supported by husbands--they had to convince all of the housewives across America that they, as a class, were just as victimized as Black civil rights activists, who were not allowed to vote, couldn't find jobs, and were being attacked by police dogs. . So while these women did have a just cause, they addressed that cause in a fraudulent manner--and in the process, convinced women across this land that raising a family and laying the foundation that everything else in our society is built upon was something less than a desirable pursuit. They also convinced many women that the only things that are of value in this world are those things that men do--in fact, focusing on being a lady, in itself, was a frivolous pursuit. The message was, the only way to compete with men was on a man's terms--a message that places women at a gross disadvantage. . I have a good friend who happens to be an Asian. She's so beautiful she doesn't look real--she looks like someone drew her. In addition, she's brilliant, and one of the sexiest women I've ever laid eyes on--and she knows it. Her only shortcoming is she's bought into the nonsense that it's against the rules to use her femininity to help her get ahead. She told me one day that her boss wouldn't allow her to move up any farther in management. When I asked why, she said, her boss always tries to flirt with her and she doesn't want to play that game. So I asked her, doesn't your boss use his deep voice and intimidating personality to get what he wants? And she told me that he did. I then asked, so why shouldn't you use your beauty and feminine wiles to get what you want? You don't have to give in to your boss, just make him think you might--right after the next promotion, then the next, and the next. You don't have to give up a thing. Just keep hope alive. There's nothing immoral about that.  You're simply manipulating him with your feminine beauty in the same way that he manipulates you with his masculine ability to intimidate. . So, absolutely a woman can be good president--and quite possibly, one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But I don't want one who thinks she has to act like a man to be successful. I want to vote for a female who's intelligent, charismatic, and well educated, yet, not afraid to stick her hands in dishwater. Yes, I want her to be professional and dignified, yet, also know the value of a short skirt and silk shiny stockings. I don't want any president who's going to try to be effective with one hand tied behind his or her back. A president should be prepared to bring every resource to bear. So if the president happens to be a woman, sure I want her to know how to be firm when she needs to be, but she should also know how to work it like it's hot. .  If a man's strong suit is intimidation, the illusion of power, and brute force, a woman's is insight, subtlety, and finesse. Once a woman loses sight of that fact, she's tying one hand behind her back. . Eric L. Wattree Http://wattree.blogspot.com Ewattree@Gmail.com Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA) Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA When I look at Barack Obama, I not only wonder why every Black person in America isn't supporting him, but why they aren't jumping up and down with glee at the opportunity. I've had many people tell me--both Black and White--that I'm just supporting Obama because he's Black. True, I am supporting Obama because he's Black, but not ONLY because he's Black. I'm supporting Barack Obama because in spite of being blessed with Black skin, and all the disadvantages that entails, this brother has managed to rise head and shoulders above the very best this society has to offer. That not only empowers him, but it also allows Black youth to embrace their Blackness with a lot more genuine pride. It allows them say, and more importantly, think, "Yes, I'm Black, and you're damn right I am somebody! I'm the product of a great and resilient people. That's very important for young people, because as the Bible points out, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." So, no, I don't support Obama just because he's Black–I support him because he's Black, on top of all his other fine qualities. Both Jesse and Sharpton are also Black, and I didn't support either of them. But this is different. When Barack Obama stepped upon the world stage, I could feel a change in the air, like something important had just happened, or a significant presence had just entered the room. I felt like, for the briefest moment the world stood still, then I looked up to see a lone figure standing on the horizon. And I wasn't alone--White folks across this land also felt it. When the change started to take hold, I noticed that in places that would have met Martin with attack dogs and fire hoses, White people were jumping up and down, smiling and singing--some of them with tears in their eyes--straining just to touch this young Black man. That's when I knew it was happening--I knew a change was coming eventually, but not like this. He came fast, and out of nowhere like a thief in the night–far from the Messiah, but like a man who knew his time had come. Then, like in that Phil Collins song, I could feel it comin' in the air, oh Lord! It was clear there was something different going on here--something that's been in the cards every since that first slave looked to the sky and said, "Please help us, dear Lord." Now, I not a religious fanatic, so I'm not about to sit here and preach you a sermon. But I am spiritual, and I'm telling you, Obama's arrival is not an accident. I don't know why, but some things are just meant to be–and if you look at them in hindsight, you can see it! When you look back on Martin and Malcolm, it's clear they were meant to be. I don't know why, but some men are just put on Earth to fulfil a plan. You can laugh at me if you want to, but I'm telling you, Obama is one of those people. Think about it. This brother is the complete opposite of everything nasty that racists have ever said about Black people. They said that we were ignorant, nasty, lazy, and didn't have any class--then this brother pops up out of nowhere. If God had handpicked somebody to show that everything racists said about Black people was a lie, we couldn't have done any better than Barack Obama. He's such a clean-cut brother that Senator Joe Biden got himself in trouble for commenting on it. His intellect and academic credentials are beyond dispute–Hillary went to Yale Law School and then got out and couldn't pass the bar; but Obama was the very first Black president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. When he becomes president, he'll easily be one of the smartest presidents in the history of this country. Think about what that's going to do to the argument of those who want to say that Black people are intellectually inferior–and more importantly, think about what it's going to do for the self-esteem of Black children all over this country, all over the world. So looking at Obama is like looking into a crystal ball–he's a perfect reflection of everything the future holds for us as a people. Even his personal heritage is a perfect metaphor for the African American people as a whole–he's the product of a marriage between Africa and America. That's what we are. Barack Obama is the walking, breathing, personification of who we are as a people. He represents the future of Black people as a whole. Many brothers like to refer back to antiquity to cite the past greatness of our people as something for us to hold on to, but while I recognize and appreciate our great contribution to the past, I'm convinced that it is the future that will define our true greatness. As African Americans, we are a brand new culture that's in the infancy of our development as a people. We're a people who were conceived in pain, born into struggle, and baptized in adversity. But adversity is experience, and experience is the source of knowledge, so we are uniquely suited to create a new, better, and more compassionate world. Thus, our history lies before us, and I'm convinced, that history will someday reflect that Barack Obama was the first step in our emergence as a people. All of us who are sitting here today, are blessed to be living at this moment in time. We are a witness to history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. And someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, young Black people will be able to look back on our contribution to that history and say, I now stand firm: I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance. I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep. I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less; and the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve and a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast. I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts; no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, Just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land. Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness. I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people. Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free. That's why I support Obama. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

WHY HILLARY'S DOG DON'T HUNT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHY HILLARY'S DOG DON'T HUNT Hillary managed to pull her carcass out of the fire in the New Hampshire Primary. But her 39 to 36 percent victory over Senator Obama seems rather shallow when you consider that she was seen as the presumptive Commander-in-Chief in waiting just prior to the Iowa caucuses. In just a few short weeks Hillary has gone from the anointed one to a woman who was, literally, brought to tears over concern for her political career—and those very tears points out an issue that begs to be examined. If Hillary's tears were genuine (and that's a big IF), we need to ask ourselves whether or not she has the emotional strength to handle the job of President of the United States. If she breaks down into tears under the stress of simply running for the job, what can we expect from her under the awesome responsibility of actually doing the job? Some may say that's a cheap shot that's only being leveled at her because she's a woman, but actually, it's a sword that cuts both ways. If Barack Obama would have broken down under similar circumstances, his candidacy would have been over. So when we're discussing the most powerful job in the world, we can't think in terms of whether the candidate is a man or a woman, we must look at their character, strength, and stability alone—and that's exactly what my question seeks to address. The fact is, we know very little about Hillary Clinton, other than she's married to Bill. She projects the image of a strong and independent woman, but how independent is she? Truly independent women are indeed something to behold, because they rely solely on their own resources under tremendous odds. No old boys club for them–it's just one women against the world. But Hillary seems to fall short in that regard–she tends to have no problem at all with embracing her husband's accomplishments as her own. With all of her talk about experience, for example—it's not her experience, it's her husband's. The only experience she has is that she slept next to power for eight years. If you take that experience away, Obama is more experienced, hands down. Hillary's claim of vast experience is completely analogous to if Mamie Eisenhower suggested that she was qualified to take over as commander of the allied command simply because she was married to General Eisenhower. Of course, I'm being facetious--but only slightly. Because the point is, just as Mamie Eisenhower would be basing her claim on her marital status, Hillary Clinton actually seems to consider the office of the president community property. One can see it in her irrational anger towards Senator Obama. She seems to look upon the senator as a young interloper seeking to take away something that is rightfully hers. That's why she can't resist attacking him every chance she gets. Even when she became "tearful", she just couldn't resist implying that Barack didn't know what he was doing: "Some of us know what we will do day one, and other's haven't thought it through." How does she know what Obama has "thought through", and what makes her such an expert on the presidency—other than she slept with one?" While Hillary tearfully claimed that her primary reason for wanting to become president was so she could bring change, and move the country in a different direction, her combative, calculating , and mean-spirited behavior clearly belies such altruistic motives. Everything she's done since she made that statement embraces the old-style approach to politics. Rather than emphasizing what she has to offer that would make her the best choice for president, she's chosen to use the old, Rovian, attack-dog style of campaigning in an attempt to undermine Obama's appeal–and history shows that appeal is a president's most valuable asset. She campaigned in South Carolina with Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, in order to appeal to the Black voters, for example. Then Johnson immediately went on stage to attack Senator Obama, and serve Hillary's purpose well–or did he? Hillary showed very poor judgement in using Johnson, and judgement is another important presidential quality. One would think that if Hillary truly had the best interest of the Black community at heart, she wouldn't have even wanted to appear on the same stage with Johnson. While, granted, Johnson is a highly successful Black entrepreneur, he's also responsible for spreading more pernicious dysfunction and cultural degradation among more Black youth than any Black man who's ever lived. This man's thoughtless greed has contributed directly to the destruction of life, and the functional viability of, literally, millions of Black kids. If Hillary didn't know that, she's out of touch with the Black experience; if she did, she simply didn't care. It was the height of irony that she would send Johnson on stage to criticize Senator Obama. The senator has spent his entire adult life trying to create a better life for the people in the Black community. On the other hand, what has Johnson done? After building the perfect tool to educate Black youth and introduce them to a better way of life, what did he do with it? He made a fortune by spreading a culture of gangster rap–with its glorification of murder, disrespect for women, saggin' pants, and the perpetuation of a dysfunctional vocabulary that all but ensures that countless young Black people will never be able to get through a job interview. Then Hillary brings this man up to criticize Obama?! If you call that love for the Black community, that's a love I can do without. On the other hand, let us look at Obama's background. After high school Obama moved to Los Angeles and attended Occidental College for two years. Thereafter he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He majored in political science and specialized in international relations, receiving his B.A. in 1983. Thereafter he worked for Business International Corporation, and later, the New York Public Interest Research Group. After moving to Chicago he became a community organizer–he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing project. He went on to Harvard in 1988, and in 1990 became the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review in 104 years. After obtaing his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1991, he returned to Chicago to direct a voter registration drive. He then became an associate attorney in the law firm of Miner, Barnhil l & Galland, representing community organizers, doing discrimination and voter rights claims. He then went on to become a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In 1996 Barack was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he represented the 13th District on the south-side of Chicago. While a state senator he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to draft successful legislation on ethics, health care reform, tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, subsidies for child care, a law monitoring racial profiling, and led the passage of legislation requiring the videotaping of homicide interrogations. Yet, he still managed to win the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. 1 But while I'd be less than honest to contend that Hillary hasn't demonstrated some compassion for the plight of the average American, her tendency to discount Obama's experience, competence, and qualifications to be president is grossly disingenuous, and the Johnson affair clearly demonstrates that her judgement under fire is highly suspect. What is also clear is that Obama's preparation for the highest office far exceeds her own. After all, while she, and her healthcare plan, was being soundly trounced by her Republican opponents, Republicans were working with Barack in Illinois to get his passed. And while she was giving tea parties in the White House to help the poor, Barack was in the trenches, and public housing projects, directly involved in the struggle. So while both senators have challenged the opposition to "bring it on", Barack was on the ground, while Hillary, was on the phone. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

AMERICA IS FADING FAST . . .

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

AMERICA IS FADING FAST . . .
AND IT’S NOT JUST THE OTHER GUY’S FAULT

Have you ever noticed how much easier it is for some people to see the faults of other’s than it is to see their own? I was listening to one of my neighbors talking to my wife one day. She was gossiping about another neighbor. She said, "Girl, she is the nosiest woman I’ve ever seen. I was watching her out my bedroom window the other day. The gas man pulled up, and she was peeping through her drapes trying to see whose house he was going to." It was all I could do to keep from laughing in her face. Here she was, peeping at another woman peeping, then calling the woman she was peeping at nosy–and she completely missed the hypocrisy in that. But that’s the way people are, and not just older people. I first became aware of this flaw in human nature when I was in the kindergarten, believe it or not. We had just finished eating and it was nap-time. I wasn’t sleepy, so I was spending the time eyeballing the room, when suddenly I heard Katrina Millsap saying, "Miss Kikuchi, Eric’s got his eyes open." Katrina was a beautiful child, but even then I recognized that a career in brain surgery was definitely not in her future.

I referred to this blind spot as a flaw, but as I’ve gotten older, I now realize that it’s not a flaw at all—actually, it’s an example of God’s compassion, and his grace. While it’s necessary for us to recognize our flaws in order for humanity to improve as a species, in order for us to both gain that knowledge, and at the same time, maintain our sense of self-esteem, God had the good sense to allow us to recognize human flaws, but only as reflected through others. That’s yet another example of the genius of God’s design. If we saw our own shortcomings with the clarity that we see the shortcomings of others, we’d be so self-conscious and depressed that we wouldn’t be able to hold our heads up. That’s why I taught my kids to always remember, before you point your finger at others, you should smell it first. Well, the fact is, I just sniffed my own finger, and I don’t like what I smell.

Every week I sit up in the comfort of my den and point my finger at Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in general. I accuse them of sitting back and allowing Bush and Cheney to drag this country through the mud with impunity. In spite of the fact that I wrote an article entitled "Don’t Preach Me a Sermon, Live Me One", every week, just like a preacher, I come to this page with a sermon about how cowardly our representatives are, and how they’re selling the people out by putting their political careers ahead of what’s in the best interest of the people. That’s been very easy for me to do, because I don’t have anything to lose. But now I’m faced with a situation where I do have something to lose, and the ramifications of actually having to live the sermon that I’m so quick to preach.

The fact is, I’m not one of those people who’s been afforded the luxury of just kicking back and making a comfortable living through my intellectual productivity. I’m, literally, a man of the people. I have a 9 to 5 just like you—if you’re one of the lucky ones. When I’m not sitting on my high horse, I work for a government agency--an agency that the people of this country are intimately dependant upon. Yet, in spite of all my holier than thou pontification, I’ve sat back and watched that agency cut your throats on a daily basis—and needlessly, just so a handful of bureaucrats can save a dollar, look good on paper, and pad their bonuses that measure into multiple thousands of dollars. As I pontificate, I’m watching millions suffer for the benefit of a few. But I do have a defense. There’s a difference between my not speaking out and congress not speaking out—because in this case, we’re not talking about Pelosi’s job, we’re talking about mine.

I’d been very successful in keeping this hypocrisy in that comfortable blind spot that our minds reserve for such matters. Then, a couple of things happened, that for some reason, shock me out of my comfort zone. First, a gentleman called me who was very distressed over the hardship he’d sustained as a result of our reckless failure to follow through on a service that should have been routine. Then on that very same day, a citizen was distressed enough to take the time to come up to the agency and request to speak with a specific supervisor. Thereafter, the supervisor was paged to the window, by name. But this particular supervisor just happened to be in a discussion with a friend at the time. I noticed that while she was being repeatedly paged, she was laughing and talking, and didn’t even look up. They continued to page her for 15 minutes, until finally another supervisor responded. But by that time it was too late. The person got tired of waiting and left.

It was clear to me why the supervisor didn’t respond, I had discussed it with her manager the day before. She knew that the shortcuts she was taking to save money, and the way she was running her unit was causing the public a severe hardship, so she’d made it a point to avoid speaking to the public at all costs. She’d made it a personal policy to avoid taking ownership for her purposeful irresponsibility.

I decided at that point that the situation was unconscionable, and something had to be done. I could no longer hide behind the fact that I was repeatedly referring these issues up the chain of command. But what should I do? What’s more important, my livelihood, or my self-respect? That’s a hell of a dilemma. In theory, my course was clear, but the consequences of reality are much more biting than the ethical abstractions that I discuss in my columns. But if I relegate my punditry to the realm of simple abstractions that are impractical in the real world, what’s the sense of even writing? So I was caught. The very same logic that I’ve always been so wedded to had come back to bite me. The bottom line was--either I should act on the courage of my convictions, or I should shut up.

In the end, however, there were two things that ultimately determined my course of action. First, everything I do is documented and archived for my grandchildren. When my grandchildren get old enough to want to know who I was as a person, I don’t want them to have to depend on anecdot al accounts, I want them to have a written record of who I was, so they’ll know what I stood for–and I want the record of this incident to show that character counts. I want them to know that I consider character as one of the most important things in life—in fact, so important that I’m willing to fall on my sword to get that message across. When they’re reading this account, I want them to know that while riches, honors, and positions can be given, and/or conferred upon you by man, no man, or institution, can confer or take away, your wisdom, knowledge, and integrity. So seek to enhance those qualities, and protect them dearly. Because in the final analysis, that--and only that--is the measure of a human being. If you keep that in mind, you'll never be intimidated by any man.

The second thing that has determined my approach to this matter, is my firm belief that everything that happens, happens for a reason. When I was growing up I fell victim to all of the corrupting influences that this society has hoisted upon our community. As a result, I was less than an ideal student. Due to the influence of drugs, a troubled home-life, and the many other distractions in the Black community, I only got snippets of an early education, but I’ve learned to trust those snippets, because they’ve served me well. Thus, I see it as more than a coincident that I just happened to be wide awake the day that they taught civic responsibility. The odds against my not only showing up at school, but being fully alert, the day my civics teacher quoted Edward R. Murrow as saying "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves", were tremendous. That coincident alone was enough to convince me that these people just weren’t meant to get away with what they’re doing to this community.

So I emailed the head of the agency (a Black man, I’m ashamed to admit) and described to him what took place with his supervisor, and suggested some changes that needed to be made. He got back with me, and we set up a meeting in his office. He invited the area manager, and we discussed, basically, what I’ve pointed out in this article. The area manager indicated that I should have gone through the chain of command. I responded by pointing out that the problem is in the policies that’s being put into place at the top, so the chain of command wasn’t the solution. In fact, the chain of command is part the problem, because it’s giving the those at the top layers of the bureaucracy others to hide behind. What’s been happening is the agency would cut corners irresponsibly, and do everything it could get away with to save money, then when all hell starts breaking loose as a direct result, they’d go into damage control mode and act like they’re shocked at what was going on. They would then pretend to address the issue by replacing the manager, who was simply following instructions. Then when things cooled they'd put that same manager back in place, or in many cases even promote him.

We’ve had six (6) managers in the past year and a half as a result of that kind of scapegoating. That not only avoids truly addressing the problem, but makes things worse, because everybody is on a continuous learning curve. It also breeds inefficiency, because as soon as a manager puts his policies into place and begin to get a feel for the unit, he’s replaced. In addition, it lowers employee morale, because the employees are constantly having to adapt to new people, and new ways of doing things. The only way that things are going to change is to remove plausible deniability from the people at the top. They need to be held accountable for their actions. So I pointed out during the meeting that if they didn’t address the issue that I was going to take the matter to Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee—and I meant it (reference my article on never trying to fight half a fight–once you commit, go for broke).

That meeting took place two weeks ago. The head of the agency requested that he be given a couple of weeks to address the issue, but I think he’s just pressing for time (he’s due to retire at the end of the year). Since the meeting a lot of pressure has been put on me—I was sent home for a week without pay, I’m no longer allowed to address public complaints, (which was my job for the past eight years), and I’ve been relegated to doing menial assignments. They’re also saying I’m not a "team player." But the fact is, I’m the ultimate team player—they’re just on the wrong team.

America is indeed under siege, but our greatest enemy can’t be defeated by the valor of our troops. This most insidious enemy that American faces can only be defeated through millions of acts of courage by millions of ordinary citizens–because America’s greatest enemy is within.

So stay tuned for further developments. The head of my agency thinks he’s going to get away clean by going into retirement. That may or may not be true. But while he may get away with his bonuses and his tidy little retirement, I can guarantee you one thing—if he doesn’t fix this situation before he leaves, he won’t get away without everyone in this community knowing how he cut their throats. And mark my word, when the citizens he was trusted to serve find out what they’ve endured for no good reason, they’re gonna be mad as hell.

Eric L. Wattree
ewattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content