Showing posts with label Jean Valjean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jean Valjean. Show all posts

Thursday, January 3, 2013

OP-ED: RESOLUTION – SAVE OUR CHILDREN! by John P. Flannery








            We have this dramatic feast of a movie this holiday season, Les Miserables, based on Victor Hugo’s grand tragic novel (in 365 chapters), and a principal focus of that extraordinary tale of redemption is how ex-con Jean Valjean, a victim of disproportionate punishment and abuse, resists rage and adopts the orphan, Cosette, when her mother Fantine dies, and raises her as his own with love, kindness and at great risk and sacrifice. 

Jean Valjean saved Cosette from the Thenardiers, a cruel corrupt couple, who forced Fantine’s illegitimate daughter, Cosette, to work at their inn while treating their own daughters, Eponine and Azelma, so kindly.

When we walk from the darkened theater, we may overlook how little has changed from this artistic recounting of real historic suffering to the present day.

There has been a recent story about adoption and children that makes this crystal clear. 

Russia has put a stop to American adoptions of Russian Children.  The media, with rare exception, has covered this as if it is only a reprisal for America criticizing Russia’s human rights violations.  Citizens are screaming bloody murder, how could Russia do that to the children we would adopt?  But it’s more complicated than that.  It is more like how could we do what we have to the children from Russia adopted by Americans?

Three years ago, Dmitri Yakovlev, a 21-month toddler, adopted from Russia, was left in a parked car for nine hours, and Dmitri died of heatstroke; the adopted parent responsible, Miles Harrison, was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.  A Russian spokesperson reportedly said, “When we give our children to the West and they die, for some reason the West always tells us it was just an accident.”

Two years ago, there was a 7 year old boy, Artyom, adopted from Russia, renamed Justin, who was put on a plane from Washington to Moscow, with a note by his adopted mother, Torry Ann Hansen, from Shelbyville, Tennessee, that said, “After giving my best to this child, I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child.”  Ms. Hansen paid someone $200 in Moscow to drop the child off at the Education Ministry.  Artyom told Russian authorities that Ms. Hansen was “bad,” pulled his hair, and that he had cried.  Russia thought then to suspend all adoptions of Russian children by Americans. 

This past summer, a Wisconsin couple, Martin and Kathleen O’Brien, who had four biological children and six adopted children - three from Russia - were charged with child abuse.  The three children were beaten, stabbed, kicked in the groin, slapped and doused with pepper spray.  The O’Briens made the adopted children stand naked on the back porch while the biological family ate dinner.  The parents made fun of them and said they should go back to Russia.  A Russian television reporter asked, “why American families with children of their own adopt Russian children and then mistreat them?”

Over the years, since 1991, more than 50,000 Russian children have been adopted by United States citizens.  Nineteen of them have died in recent years. 

I know families that have adopted children from Russia who have raised and cared for them as did Jean Valjean for Cosette – with loving kindness.  But we must admit there are also modern day couples like the Thenardiers who abuse children.

There’s a broader context for this abuse that we must consider – that Americans are not just abusive of adopted children; they are also terribly abusive of their own biological children.

  This is no recent occurrence and, for good or bad, we have some statistics on what the states are suffering in terms of child abuse and neglect, defined, at federal law, in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as “any recent act or failure on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

In 2011 there were 2 million reports of maltreatment of children, prompting a child services agency response and a disposition.    In the entire population of children, there were 9.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population.  Children in their first year of birth were victimized the worst at the rate of 21 children per 1,000 children in the same age group.  Slightly more abuse was suffered by girls.  More than 40% of the victims were white and the remainder split between Black and Hispanic.  More than 75% suffered from neglect, 15% from physical abuse, 10 percent from sexual abuse.  In 2011, there were 1, 545 deaths of children.  80% of the deaths were children younger than 4 years old.  Four-fifths of these deaths were caused by one or more parents.

Upton Sinclair, a muckracker who, in his own right, forced society to reflect upon its harmful excesses, described Les Miserables as a necessary book “so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth.”  He thought that there was something we could learn from such mirrors of our life so long as we witness “the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night” and so long as “social asphyxia shall be possible.”

A resolution we may wish to renew is to save our children – all our children – in this New Year!

Thursday, September 27, 2012

GAZETTE COLUMN: ROMNEY - THE INELEGANT PLUTOCRAT by John P. Flannery

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney infamously said recently that 47% of our citizens "believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, you name it." 

Romney therefore doesn’t believe in providing any public assistance to the ill, the hungry, or the homeless?  Perhaps Anatole France captured Mitt’s understanding when he wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to get in the streets, and to steal bread.”  On the question of stealing bread, do we think Mitt would have imprisoned Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister and family (see Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables )?

Romney further complained that these folk who think they are “entitled” are people who pay no income tax." Romney said, "my job is not to worry about these people.  I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Wow.  What a political buzz kill for all those people who thought this guy was going to get them jobs so that they could earn money and pay taxes. 

Perhaps, Romney, the profit sucking predator of those companies he liquidated for profits, revealed his true “Mr. Hide” side more candidly because he was “with his true friends.”

Romney likely thought he was enveloped in a cone of silence addressing other wealthy plutocrats at a dinner that cost each a political contribution as much as an upscale motor home.

Romney spoke to those who “think” like he does, in this disparaging way, that those not paying federal income taxes are not taking responsibility and caring for their lives. 

The 47% that Romney is talking about are mostly working poor, children, mothers, young adults, those who lost their jobs in the recession, the disabled, seniors, servicemen and service women.  

Is “Romney the Indifferent” saying that a student who doesn’t pay income taxes is failing to take personal responsibility, or a retiree who collects social security, or a person on unemployment who lost a job because his company failed because of shoddy banking practices?

Romney should know that the student, mother or senior who doesn’t pay income taxes pays payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare).  

But Romney thinks these are undeserved “entitlements,” though these men and women paid hard cash in advance of their senior years for Social Security and Medicare, and the government now has an “obligation” to pay what it promised.  Vice Presidential Candidate, Paul Ryan, the Mini-Mitt, got booed by the AARP because he advanced this line of reasoning publicly, that Romney would reform Social Security, Medicare and Health Care. 

Not incidentally, those who don't pay federal taxes, also pay sales, excise and property taxes.

Romney the plutocrat sees takers and parasitic moochers.  It’s like those bright intensely colored pictures of images you used to find in cereal boxes.  You’d stare at them for a while until they were imprinted on your cerebral cortex, you’d close your eyes, and then, when you looked at a blank wall, you’d see that same image, almost wherever you looked even though it was only trapped in your mind – and didn’t really exist.  Romney got this fixed image of his and he sees anyone who doesn’t pay taxes as a moocher.

Romney is worth between $190 and $250 million dollars, and earned about 13 million dollars last year, and paid only about 14% in taxes, less than many middle class taxpayers including teachers, cops and construction workers; that makes Romney more like a taker; Warren Buffett said no wealthy person should pay less than most middle class Americans; Romney doesn’t agree.

Romney got busted making these remarks making him the leading candidate for the summertime Scrooge award, for the most non-empathetic candidate this presidential season.

When caught, Romney raced to a microphone to say he’d been “inelegant.”  If he’d known we’d find out, he would have said it differently.  He asked, are we going to believe our lying eyes and ears or what he tells us to believe.

I believe that Mitt, who is himself well-housed, and well fed, has been caught saying aloud what the current Republican Party believes.

Herman Melville wrote, “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.”

Mitt offers this nation a dark vision and a sorry legacy – and the strongest evidence is his own words.