The funeral for Elizabeth Edwards will take place this afternoon in Raleigh, North Carolina. Her grown daughter and two preteen children will look on as she's laid to rest beside her son who died at the age of 16. To anyone with even a shred of human decency, this is a heartbreaking scene. It's hard to imagine feeling anything but compassion for this family and an innate desire to somehow ease their suffering. However, I'm sad to say that there are people who don't have a shred of human decency. Enter our very own Star Spangled Taliban, the Westboro Baptist Church. They are sending a contingent of their hate merchants who will be celebrating her death, brandishing signs saying, among other things, "Thank God for breast cancer" and otherwise doing what they can to salt the wounds of the suffering children who have just lost their mother.
The perverse irony is that these sadistic monsters are perpetrating this viciousness in the name of God. There is nothing divine about their inhuman cruelty, and claiming that it's done to worship The Prince of Peace is like honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. by denying blacks the right to sit at the front of a bus. This is apparently lost on people like Fred Phelps. Because religion should and does foster the best elements of humankind, I still find myself unable to make peace with the fact that religious fundamentalism and zealotry are responsible for humanity at its absolute worst. Whether we're talking about al-Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church, the depravity of these warped fundamentalists, comes from an abyss of hatred and evil whose depth is difficult if not impossible to plumb.
Luckily, these cretins from the WBC have marginalized themselves by visiting their unique brand of ugliness upon the grieving families of military personnel who gave their lives, generally at a very young age. Otherwise, I fear that they might have wider appeal among religious conservatives in this country. Remember that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson went on television to advance the view that we were deservedly attacked because, among other things, we don't sufficiently subjugate women or mistreat gays and lesbians. Thus, in the view of Robertson, Falwell and the intolerant millions for whom they speak, God apparently lifted His magical force field protecting our country just so innocent masses could be slaughtered as a cautionary tale whose moral is to be more judgmental and intolerant. To his credit, President George W. Bush, himself a conservative Christian, immediately repudiated this filth. We must remember that while Pat Robertson and those like him would be in the fringe of any other advanced society, he is in the mainstream in this country. In 1988 he finished second in the Iowa caucus for the Republican presidential nomination. Eventual nominee and president, George H.W. Bush finished third.
First Amendment protection applies equally to everyone in this country including the wretched, despicable hatemongers from the WBC and I wouldn't want it any other way. They have the right to worship as they choose, to speak freely and to protest, although like all rights certain reasonable restrictions may apply. Freedom of speech is, however, a two-way street and good people must stand up and say in no uncertain terms that what Fred Phelps and his minions do is an unmitigated disgrace, deplorable in the eyes of anyone with a scintilla of decency or Christian charity.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
One Nation Under...Well, a Lot of Things
When December 7th rolls around each year we're reminded of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred on this date 69 years ago. That event brought us into World War II with a vengeance and provided the opening sentence for a magnificent chapter in not only U.S. history but world history as well. The United States pulled together, sacrificed across the board and did more than anyone thought possible. Let me illustrate the power of our resolve. In the second half of 1940, gearing up for possible entry into WWII, we produced about 3,600 airplanes. By 1944 we were producing nearly 100,000 planes a year. The unified strength of the USA was a force that simply couldn't be matched if we were determined to master a challenge. In 70 years we've had a meteoric rise, but we're headed for a crash landing unless we change course.
We can't afford to sit on our laurels and assume that we'll always be on top because God likes us best. We earned our number one status with sacrifice and dedication not supernatural puppeteering, and we can and will fall hard from that lofty perch if we think that we don't still need to do what's hard. Unless you're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice that will accompany the hard choices facing us, don't bother puffing up your chest and preaching to me about the greatness of our "one nation under God", because right now we're also one nation undereducated, underemployed and underwater on our mortgages. Our peace of mind is under siege, anyone different from us is under suspicion and too many of us are under the delusion that the American way of doing anything is by definition better than what's being done elsewhere. This has fostered the erroneous and destructive belief that we can't learn a thing from others around the world; they should learn from us. Like so many heroes of the Greek tragedies, our fatal flaw could be hubris.
We can't afford to sit on our laurels and assume that we'll always be on top because God likes us best. We earned our number one status with sacrifice and dedication not supernatural puppeteering, and we can and will fall hard from that lofty perch if we think that we don't still need to do what's hard. Unless you're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice that will accompany the hard choices facing us, don't bother puffing up your chest and preaching to me about the greatness of our "one nation under God", because right now we're also one nation undereducated, underemployed and underwater on our mortgages. Our peace of mind is under siege, anyone different from us is under suspicion and too many of us are under the delusion that the American way of doing anything is by definition better than what's being done elsewhere. This has fostered the erroneous and destructive belief that we can't learn a thing from others around the world; they should learn from us. Like so many heroes of the Greek tragedies, our fatal flaw could be hubris.
We're increasingly perceived around the world as incapable of solving our problems. We used to be so adept at doing whatever it took to build a strong and prosperous society that the world could only watch in awe as the 20th Century became the American Century. At the moment, we're less like that impressive force on the global stage and more like a lumbering, bumbling oaf who can lift a ton but can't spell it. We need to take a brutally honest inventory of our shortcomings and somehow find the discipline to right the ship even though it will involve some pain and, dare I say, cooperation. Otherwise, the United States is doomed to become an effete has-been like a character from Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" who lives in the past, basking in the memory of bygone greatness.
We used to rank #1 in college graduation rates; we now rank 12th, and we rank 20th in high school graduation. If we combine that with the fact that we've outsourced so many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, the picture becomes even more disturbing. If we're not educating our workforce as well as the rest of the industrial or post-industrial nations and we've taken the suitable jobs for the less educated and moved them overseas, I'm not sure how we wake from our current economic nightmare. It certainly seems that right now we're eating our seed corn. The problem of today's overconsumption imperiling our future became disturbingly clear as we watched the wrangling over tax cuts and spending even in the face of ballooning debt. Right now we completely lack the will to be responsible grownups who make the hard choices and sacrifice the way people did 70 years ago when we were en route to unparalleled greatness. I'll explore taxes, spending, politicians and the electorate in another post. For now I'll simply say that like the craven attack on Pearl Harbor 69 years ago today, our greedy, selfish and childish refusal to act in good faith and make sacrifices should also live in infamy.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Greed Over People
If you had any doubt that the Republican Party favored the rich and powerful over everyone else, such doubt can now be safely abandoned. The GOP, which apparently stands for Greed Over People, continues to hold a gun to the head of the American people, playing their role as extortionist for the very rich to perfection. Their plan is to hamper and obstruct any effort to do the people's business unless and until their ransom is paid and the wealthy are given everything on their wish list. At that point, the rest of us can begin negotiating against ourselves regarding tough choices and shared sacrifice as long as the most privileged are insulated from the pain.
Nothing brings this into sharper focus than Republicans' refusal to extend desperately needed unemployment benefits or anything else until we cut taxes for the richest sliver of 1%. This became an inarguable fact after the Democrats already started negotiating against themselves and agreed to lower taxes on everyone whose taxable income fell below $1,000,000 a year and Republicans rejected this as an insufficient sop to the fantastically rich for whom they pimp.
Considering the ability of Republican lawmakers to inflict devastating harm on average Americans, coupled with the heightened airport security of late, perhaps al-Qaeda should funnel its resources into the GOP coffers rather than spending money on suicide vests. Maybe if they did so and it came to light we'd realize what's happening. Unfortunately, since the Senate Minority Leader isn't named Osama bin McConnell most Americans are blind to the fact that we're being kneecapped by these thugs. Indeed, keenly aware of our widespread oblivion, Mitch McConnell was even brazen enough to say, "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list." While I abhor both the complete lack of integrity and the cruel indifference to the suffering of his constituents, it's hard not to marvel at the ability to summon the colossal audacity it takes to make such a statement, which is opposed to the truth by a full 180 degrees.
Republicans are taking the unprecedented step of shutting off needed unemployment benefits at a time of such high unemployment. The average check is less than $300 a week and the entire expense would add much less to the deficit that then unfunded tax cuts for the richest Americans. Nevertheless, Republicans are wiling, perhaps even eager, to to strip away the only safety net that lies between millions of Americans and Dickensian horror. On the other hand, the far more expensive, far less economically valuable tax cuts for the wealthy not only don't have to be paid for, but Republicans have vowed to rain down a firestorm of obstructionism and pain if anyone dares to oppose this most sacred of budget busters. In other words, if the modern American equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge has his after tax income reduced from 700 times that of Bob Cratchit down to 675 times, Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that some American homes face the heartbreaking prospect of "an empty chair and a tiny crutch without an owner."
I want to emphasize how much more valuable these unemployment checks are to our economy than the proposed tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder. All of the money from the unemployment benefits gets put back into the economy. People using these checks to keep the wolf from the door aren't stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. The same cannot be said for those making $1,000,000 a year. The Republicans' own hue and cry over the failure of the stimulus proves this very point. We tried to pump money into the economy through a program of tax cuts and spending, but the rich and powerful scooped it up and they're now hoarding unprecedented amounts of cash. Any economist would readily affirm that we'd get a greater return on the jobless benefits than on the top bracket tax cuts, but Republicans will continue to carry water for the rich, everyone else be damned.
Nothing brings this into sharper focus than Republicans' refusal to extend desperately needed unemployment benefits or anything else until we cut taxes for the richest sliver of 1%. This became an inarguable fact after the Democrats already started negotiating against themselves and agreed to lower taxes on everyone whose taxable income fell below $1,000,000 a year and Republicans rejected this as an insufficient sop to the fantastically rich for whom they pimp.
Considering the ability of Republican lawmakers to inflict devastating harm on average Americans, coupled with the heightened airport security of late, perhaps al-Qaeda should funnel its resources into the GOP coffers rather than spending money on suicide vests. Maybe if they did so and it came to light we'd realize what's happening. Unfortunately, since the Senate Minority Leader isn't named Osama bin McConnell most Americans are blind to the fact that we're being kneecapped by these thugs. Indeed, keenly aware of our widespread oblivion, Mitch McConnell was even brazen enough to say, "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list." While I abhor both the complete lack of integrity and the cruel indifference to the suffering of his constituents, it's hard not to marvel at the ability to summon the colossal audacity it takes to make such a statement, which is opposed to the truth by a full 180 degrees.
Republicans are taking the unprecedented step of shutting off needed unemployment benefits at a time of such high unemployment. The average check is less than $300 a week and the entire expense would add much less to the deficit that then unfunded tax cuts for the richest Americans. Nevertheless, Republicans are wiling, perhaps even eager, to to strip away the only safety net that lies between millions of Americans and Dickensian horror. On the other hand, the far more expensive, far less economically valuable tax cuts for the wealthy not only don't have to be paid for, but Republicans have vowed to rain down a firestorm of obstructionism and pain if anyone dares to oppose this most sacred of budget busters. In other words, if the modern American equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge has his after tax income reduced from 700 times that of Bob Cratchit down to 675 times, Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that some American homes face the heartbreaking prospect of "an empty chair and a tiny crutch without an owner."
I want to emphasize how much more valuable these unemployment checks are to our economy than the proposed tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder. All of the money from the unemployment benefits gets put back into the economy. People using these checks to keep the wolf from the door aren't stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. The same cannot be said for those making $1,000,000 a year. The Republicans' own hue and cry over the failure of the stimulus proves this very point. We tried to pump money into the economy through a program of tax cuts and spending, but the rich and powerful scooped it up and they're now hoarding unprecedented amounts of cash. Any economist would readily affirm that we'd get a greater return on the jobless benefits than on the top bracket tax cuts, but Republicans will continue to carry water for the rich, everyone else be damned.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
We're Not in Mayberry Anymore, Goober
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" I'm introducing this quote before its author because I want the message evaluated on its own, regardless of the messenger. The quip belongs to John Maynard Keynes, the 20th Century British economist for whom Keynesian economics is named. While those on the political right are no fans of Keynes or his economic theories, they would do well to consider those words or perhaps these of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of limiting congressional reelection, let's say that none of our Founding Fathers imagined an elaborate federal government with career politicians. I'm not sure what if any relevance this bears on today's society. They didn't imagine a telephone either, let alone a stealth bomber or a Google search. To say the least, our country has changed dramatically since the 1700s. If you ran a roadside vegetable stand you wouldn't have a staff attorney on your payroll, but if your little produce business grew to be the size of Del Monte Foods, you would not only have a lawyer on your staff, you would have a team of them. Responding to changing needs and circumstances shouldn't be confused with abandoning sacred principle, while refusing to recognize and adapt to change may be nothing more than maintaining a foolish consistency. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?
Oh how the facts have changed! Based on 1790 census data, the entire United States at that time was less populous than most current states and even some counties. Comparing real GDP numbers, meaning economic output figures that have been adjusted for the purpose of valid apples to apples comparison, at the time George Washington took office, our economy would produce less in the eight years of his presidency than our economy produced on the day of President Obama's inauguration. The world's largest air force is the U.S. Air Force and the world's second largest air force is the U.S. Navy. This is not your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's United States.
Mayberry, N.C. may have done just fine with a small volunteer fire department but that wouldn't work for Chicago. Mayberry's law enforcement had a total force of two, one of whom, Deputy Barney Fife, was issued only one bullet, which he was ordered to keep in his pocket instead of his pistol. I don't think that would work for New York City. Take a look around, Goober; we're not in Mayberry anymore. We have the world's largest economy and the world's most powerful military. Like it or not we're major players on the global stage and managing the purely domestic affairs of this vast and extremely complex nation is no mean feat either.
Americans dislike government but rational Americans also concede that government is necessary. The work of our elected officials is difficult, sophisticated and important. Doing it well is beyond the ability of most people. Why then would anyone argue that this work should be done exclusively by dilettantes rather than at least some professionals? No one would say that Warren Buffet must leave the investment world after 12 years or Lee Iacocca shouldn't be allowed to make a career in the auto industry. If we need a job done, it's an act of sheer lunacy to systematically exclude the most qualified candidates from consideration.
I really didn't intend this piece to be about term limits as such. I'll take that topic up in a future post. My point here is to reject the reasoning that since our founders pictured society a certain way, we should be barred from altering that vision in any way lest we betray some core value. By 18th Century standards our constitutional democracy was remarkably enlightened, but we certainly had room for improvement. More to the point, as circumstances evolve, we need to be nimble enough to respond to a changing world.
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of limiting congressional reelection, let's say that none of our Founding Fathers imagined an elaborate federal government with career politicians. I'm not sure what if any relevance this bears on today's society. They didn't imagine a telephone either, let alone a stealth bomber or a Google search. To say the least, our country has changed dramatically since the 1700s. If you ran a roadside vegetable stand you wouldn't have a staff attorney on your payroll, but if your little produce business grew to be the size of Del Monte Foods, you would not only have a lawyer on your staff, you would have a team of them. Responding to changing needs and circumstances shouldn't be confused with abandoning sacred principle, while refusing to recognize and adapt to change may be nothing more than maintaining a foolish consistency. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?
Oh how the facts have changed! Based on 1790 census data, the entire United States at that time was less populous than most current states and even some counties. Comparing real GDP numbers, meaning economic output figures that have been adjusted for the purpose of valid apples to apples comparison, at the time George Washington took office, our economy would produce less in the eight years of his presidency than our economy produced on the day of President Obama's inauguration. The world's largest air force is the U.S. Air Force and the world's second largest air force is the U.S. Navy. This is not your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's United States.
Mayberry, N.C. may have done just fine with a small volunteer fire department but that wouldn't work for Chicago. Mayberry's law enforcement had a total force of two, one of whom, Deputy Barney Fife, was issued only one bullet, which he was ordered to keep in his pocket instead of his pistol. I don't think that would work for New York City. Take a look around, Goober; we're not in Mayberry anymore. We have the world's largest economy and the world's most powerful military. Like it or not we're major players on the global stage and managing the purely domestic affairs of this vast and extremely complex nation is no mean feat either.
Americans dislike government but rational Americans also concede that government is necessary. The work of our elected officials is difficult, sophisticated and important. Doing it well is beyond the ability of most people. Why then would anyone argue that this work should be done exclusively by dilettantes rather than at least some professionals? No one would say that Warren Buffet must leave the investment world after 12 years or Lee Iacocca shouldn't be allowed to make a career in the auto industry. If we need a job done, it's an act of sheer lunacy to systematically exclude the most qualified candidates from consideration.
I really didn't intend this piece to be about term limits as such. I'll take that topic up in a future post. My point here is to reject the reasoning that since our founders pictured society a certain way, we should be barred from altering that vision in any way lest we betray some core value. By 18th Century standards our constitutional democracy was remarkably enlightened, but we certainly had room for improvement. More to the point, as circumstances evolve, we need to be nimble enough to respond to a changing world.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
765 Reasons to Be Proud
Last night former eBay CEO Meg Whitman received several million votes in her failed bid (no pun intended) for the California governorship and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina received millions of votes in an unsuccessful run for the Senate. A close friend of mine is also a chief executive of sorts, albeit of a much smaller company, and he entered politics this year as well, running for a district-wide state office. While a shift of 100,000 votes would look like a meaningless rounding error in the above races for Governor or Senator, for my friend Bill an additional 7,000 votes would have given him a victory in his first political campaign.
Unlike campaigns that threw a fortune into attack ads and mud at their opponents, Bill's campaign directed all of its resources into putting his ideas forward and letting them rise or fall on their merits. Truth be told, we were disappointed but not surprised by his loss at the polls. Everyone loves a good David vs. Goliath story with a triumphant underdog, but in reality we tend to see why the smart money bets on Goliath. Bill isn't an Elk, a Lion or a Mason. He isn't on the school board, zoning board or planning board. He's not a union member, he belongs to no church and he has only lived in his district for 12 years, which makes him a newcomer by local standards. In short, at the beginning of the election cycle he was a cipher to most voters and he was up against a popular multi-term Republican incumbent in a very Republican district. That's not an uphill battle; that's an uphill four minute mile in street shoes.
Things have gotten ugly in this country. Our political discourse at the moment is only slightly more civilized than a cockfight, and political leaders have been regarded with contempt. Republicans, who had a huge night last night, have an approval rating that would generally spell disaster, and on the other side of the aisle, Harry Reid only survived because he was perceived as a Democratic frying pan to Sharron Angle's Grand Old Fire. Many voters are selecting whomever they despise less.
That said, spending election night in my friend's living room reminded me what's great about our political process and let me forget the cynicism and anger for a while. I sat there with a man who sought nothing more than a chance to make his contribution to our self-governing society. He wasn't seeking money, power, a pension or anything else, nor was he trying to advance any agenda other than doing whatever he can to improve the lives and fortunes of those in his district. This was a case of civic minded public service in its purest and noblest form. He and I have some major differences in political philosophy, yet he welcomed my input as well as that of anyone else who was willing to talk to him. He wanted to hear from everyone both despite and because of political differences. That's how a representative of the people should be!
When all the returns were in, Bill received 765 votes or 6% of those cast. That's actually an impressive tally for a little known third party candidate in that race. He should be proud of every vote because he earned each one of them with his ideas not his party affiliation. He ran a selfless and honorable race and his message resonated with a significant number of people. I wish that everyone would see up close what it's really like to run for office. Those who put themselves out there deserve our respect, and around Election Day, those who dared to step into the ring have earned the right to stand a little taller, win or lose. I'm thankful that I had a ringside seat.
Unlike campaigns that threw a fortune into attack ads and mud at their opponents, Bill's campaign directed all of its resources into putting his ideas forward and letting them rise or fall on their merits. Truth be told, we were disappointed but not surprised by his loss at the polls. Everyone loves a good David vs. Goliath story with a triumphant underdog, but in reality we tend to see why the smart money bets on Goliath. Bill isn't an Elk, a Lion or a Mason. He isn't on the school board, zoning board or planning board. He's not a union member, he belongs to no church and he has only lived in his district for 12 years, which makes him a newcomer by local standards. In short, at the beginning of the election cycle he was a cipher to most voters and he was up against a popular multi-term Republican incumbent in a very Republican district. That's not an uphill battle; that's an uphill four minute mile in street shoes.
Things have gotten ugly in this country. Our political discourse at the moment is only slightly more civilized than a cockfight, and political leaders have been regarded with contempt. Republicans, who had a huge night last night, have an approval rating that would generally spell disaster, and on the other side of the aisle, Harry Reid only survived because he was perceived as a Democratic frying pan to Sharron Angle's Grand Old Fire. Many voters are selecting whomever they despise less.
That said, spending election night in my friend's living room reminded me what's great about our political process and let me forget the cynicism and anger for a while. I sat there with a man who sought nothing more than a chance to make his contribution to our self-governing society. He wasn't seeking money, power, a pension or anything else, nor was he trying to advance any agenda other than doing whatever he can to improve the lives and fortunes of those in his district. This was a case of civic minded public service in its purest and noblest form. He and I have some major differences in political philosophy, yet he welcomed my input as well as that of anyone else who was willing to talk to him. He wanted to hear from everyone both despite and because of political differences. That's how a representative of the people should be!
When all the returns were in, Bill received 765 votes or 6% of those cast. That's actually an impressive tally for a little known third party candidate in that race. He should be proud of every vote because he earned each one of them with his ideas not his party affiliation. He ran a selfless and honorable race and his message resonated with a significant number of people. I wish that everyone would see up close what it's really like to run for office. Those who put themselves out there deserve our respect, and around Election Day, those who dared to step into the ring have earned the right to stand a little taller, win or lose. I'm thankful that I had a ringside seat.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A 21st Century Reality Check Regarding the 18th Century
Wistful reflection is a mighty force; it can turn The Great Depression into The Good Ol' Days or the 18th Century into the halcyon days of power to the people, unlike today when pointy-headed elitists are enslaving us by straying from our founders’ ideals. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or scream as I watch Tea Partiers not only pine for these days but argue that anyone who doesn’t is historically ignorant. Before I explore this I want to state clearly that I have tremendous admiration for the architects of our democratic republic. I do, however, believe that a society should endeavor to perfect itself over time. I won’t presume to speak for our Founding Fathers, but I suspect they would agree. My quarrel is not with our nation’s founders but with my contemporaries who think we’ve veered dangerously off course ever since powdered wigs went out of vogue.
I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.
Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.
We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.
At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.
As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.
I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.
Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.
We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.
At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.
As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Decency and Humanity Lie in Ashes
When chastised for his biased editing of the British Gazette, Winston Churchill quipped, "I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire." This was a great laugh line because the entire English speaking world understood that everyone would be on the side of the heroic firefighters who save people's homes and against the fires that destroy them. Sadly however, this week it's no longer as funny since some right wingers in this country have allied themselves with the flames, applauding a decision in rural Olbion County, Tennessee ordering firefighters to stand idly by and allow a home to burn to the ground because the homeowner didn't pay a $75 dollar fee.
The residents not only lost all of their earthly possessions, but their three dogs and a cat were also burned alive in the blaze. For those of you who aren't animal lovers, I ask you this, what if these pets were children instead? Should we let them die for fear that otherwise people may feel less compelled to pay the $75 fee, or should our basic humanity dictate that a bare minimum level of decency must be maintained, even in the face of a possible revenue decline, which can then be addressed? The homeowner offered to pay the fee, and both he and his neighbor offered to pay the firefighters whatever it cost to put out the fire, but they were told it was too late at that point.
I want to discuss two related though very different groups of people. First, there are those who support the fiscal decision to offer or refuse basic public safety resources like a fire department based on an opt-in fee. They philosophically prefer small, a la carte government and this "pay-to-spray" policy represents such an ideology put into practice. The other group is comprised of those who take delight in this family's tragedy. I want to discuss the second group first.
Glenn Beck and his sidekick spent some time on the radio show not only supporting the decision that forbade the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but also mocking the victim over and over. Beck's point, when he could interrupt his lackey's salting the wounds of the now homeless family, was that if we show any human decency and come to the aid of those who failed to pay the $75, they would be sponging off their neighbors. The one and only thing that both Beck and his co-host blurted out in perfect unison was that if the firefighters had put out the fire, "NO ONE" would play the $75. This speaks volumes about Glenn Beck. In his mind, unless people are allowed to suffer the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking consequences, 100% of the people will be dishonorable 100% of the time. Luckily, as usual, he's wrong. Most people who expect to receive services pay the required fees whether or not it's possible that they could get away with gaming the system. While we all know this, we need to understand that someone whose entire life revolves around spreading fear and hatred is incapable of seeing humankind's better nature. Of course Beck would never have empathy for the victim because, as he said on national television, empathy leads to genocide. Don't ask me to explain; I can't untangle the twisted and tortured mind of Glenn Beck.
As far as the more tepid supporters of this sad event are concerned, I have to ask you, is this is really the world in which you want to live? First of all, this is a sufficiently obvious pubic good that it should never be considered a luxury item people choose to buy. Even if you somehow reject the notion of fire prevention as part of the public weal, there are any number of better schemes to keep revenues in line with costs than refusing to save the life of someone who failed to pay a small fee. Also, let's consider human error. If you dislike the public sector so much that you would make fire protection a free market option, you very likely believe the government is inept and that clerical errors will abound. If you're right, should the people who live at #145 and paid their fee be left to lose their home or worse because a clerk erroneously posted their payment to #154? Come on, people, we're better than this.
The residents not only lost all of their earthly possessions, but their three dogs and a cat were also burned alive in the blaze. For those of you who aren't animal lovers, I ask you this, what if these pets were children instead? Should we let them die for fear that otherwise people may feel less compelled to pay the $75 fee, or should our basic humanity dictate that a bare minimum level of decency must be maintained, even in the face of a possible revenue decline, which can then be addressed? The homeowner offered to pay the fee, and both he and his neighbor offered to pay the firefighters whatever it cost to put out the fire, but they were told it was too late at that point.
I want to discuss two related though very different groups of people. First, there are those who support the fiscal decision to offer or refuse basic public safety resources like a fire department based on an opt-in fee. They philosophically prefer small, a la carte government and this "pay-to-spray" policy represents such an ideology put into practice. The other group is comprised of those who take delight in this family's tragedy. I want to discuss the second group first.
Glenn Beck and his sidekick spent some time on the radio show not only supporting the decision that forbade the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but also mocking the victim over and over. Beck's point, when he could interrupt his lackey's salting the wounds of the now homeless family, was that if we show any human decency and come to the aid of those who failed to pay the $75, they would be sponging off their neighbors. The one and only thing that both Beck and his co-host blurted out in perfect unison was that if the firefighters had put out the fire, "NO ONE" would play the $75. This speaks volumes about Glenn Beck. In his mind, unless people are allowed to suffer the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking consequences, 100% of the people will be dishonorable 100% of the time. Luckily, as usual, he's wrong. Most people who expect to receive services pay the required fees whether or not it's possible that they could get away with gaming the system. While we all know this, we need to understand that someone whose entire life revolves around spreading fear and hatred is incapable of seeing humankind's better nature. Of course Beck would never have empathy for the victim because, as he said on national television, empathy leads to genocide. Don't ask me to explain; I can't untangle the twisted and tortured mind of Glenn Beck.
As far as the more tepid supporters of this sad event are concerned, I have to ask you, is this is really the world in which you want to live? First of all, this is a sufficiently obvious pubic good that it should never be considered a luxury item people choose to buy. Even if you somehow reject the notion of fire prevention as part of the public weal, there are any number of better schemes to keep revenues in line with costs than refusing to save the life of someone who failed to pay a small fee. Also, let's consider human error. If you dislike the public sector so much that you would make fire protection a free market option, you very likely believe the government is inept and that clerical errors will abound. If you're right, should the people who live at #145 and paid their fee be left to lose their home or worse because a clerk erroneously posted their payment to #154? Come on, people, we're better than this.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Fundamental Problem of Fundamentalism
Nine years ago today we watched in horror as a series of carefully planned attacks were carried out against innocent victims who had no idea they would be targets of such savagery. It's hard for most people to imagine how anyone can be so inhuman as to deliberately cause maximum suffering and loss of innocent life. Perversely though not surprisingly, this was yet another atrocity done in the name of God, or as Muslims call Him, Allah. Speaking of God, one of His self-appointed press secretaries down in Florida dominated the news this week, as we paid far too much attention to this inconsequential flyspeck of a man who overextended his 15 minutes of fame by threatening to make a big show of burning the Koran. This would have served no purpose whatsoever except to inject a booster shot of hatred into a few already hate-poisoned souls.
Religion has enriched humanity by inspiring charity, compassion and other virtues, but religious fundamentalism and fanaticism have led to some horrendous things. Right now Muslims may be more likely than others to commit acts of terror explicitly in the name of their faith, but we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, conclude that the Koran is a book of violence while the Bible is a book of peace. Both of these sacred texts can be horrifying if read a certain way. We see in our Bible, particularly the Old Testament, a prime example of the God as bogeyman paradigm, a ghost story designed to terrify the masses and cow them into submission. You needn't go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb to see some very disturbing things. Let's just look at a couple of the Bible's greatest hits, the Ten Commandments and the great flood/Noah's Ark.
There are variations of the Ten Commandments but in every case the first several involve playing to the ego of a needy and insecure God who even admits He's jealous and will punish descendants of those who reject Him to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5:9). The Bible thus paints God as not only petty but also savagely vindictive, attacking generation after generation of innocent victims if someone in their lineage wouldn't invite Him to sit at the cool kids' table. The Bible also orders us to commit acts of heinous brutality if the Ten Commandments are violated. If anyone fails to speak of God with awe and reverence he is guilty of blasphemy and we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Lev. 24:13-16). People are also to be killed for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and the punishment for being a disobedient son? Yup, we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Deut 21:18-21).
The tale of Noah's Ark shows our God at his most bloodthirsty. He got angry and decided he would spare eight people (one couple, their three sons and their wives) and the bare minimum number of creatures necessary for repopulation, then He would drown every other living thing. God's sociopathic overreaction makes Vlad the Impaler look like the Dalai Lama, yet we would condemn the whole of Islam as brutally savage based on a news story about one jagoff blowing up a pizzeria.
I'm not insulting God. I would be if and only if I believed the Bible to be a direct dictation from God to an infallible stenographer, which I most assuredly do not. For one thing the story of Noah's Ark doesn't pass the laugh test. Rain falling at a rate that would cover the mountains in a few weeks would sink the USS Nimitz let alone a wooden boat laden with elephants, hippos, etc. Plus, though Bible defenders try to explain this away, a great many of the animals aboard this floating food chain would not be on the passenger list so much as the menu. Somebody just made it up. If you seek spiritual enlightenment to be the best person you can be I applaud you, but don't adopt fanaticism; nothing good comes of it no matter what Moses claims the talking shrubbery told him.
Religion has enriched humanity by inspiring charity, compassion and other virtues, but religious fundamentalism and fanaticism have led to some horrendous things. Right now Muslims may be more likely than others to commit acts of terror explicitly in the name of their faith, but we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, conclude that the Koran is a book of violence while the Bible is a book of peace. Both of these sacred texts can be horrifying if read a certain way. We see in our Bible, particularly the Old Testament, a prime example of the God as bogeyman paradigm, a ghost story designed to terrify the masses and cow them into submission. You needn't go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb to see some very disturbing things. Let's just look at a couple of the Bible's greatest hits, the Ten Commandments and the great flood/Noah's Ark.
There are variations of the Ten Commandments but in every case the first several involve playing to the ego of a needy and insecure God who even admits He's jealous and will punish descendants of those who reject Him to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5:9). The Bible thus paints God as not only petty but also savagely vindictive, attacking generation after generation of innocent victims if someone in their lineage wouldn't invite Him to sit at the cool kids' table. The Bible also orders us to commit acts of heinous brutality if the Ten Commandments are violated. If anyone fails to speak of God with awe and reverence he is guilty of blasphemy and we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Lev. 24:13-16). People are also to be killed for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and the punishment for being a disobedient son? Yup, we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Deut 21:18-21).
The tale of Noah's Ark shows our God at his most bloodthirsty. He got angry and decided he would spare eight people (one couple, their three sons and their wives) and the bare minimum number of creatures necessary for repopulation, then He would drown every other living thing. God's sociopathic overreaction makes Vlad the Impaler look like the Dalai Lama, yet we would condemn the whole of Islam as brutally savage based on a news story about one jagoff blowing up a pizzeria.
I'm not insulting God. I would be if and only if I believed the Bible to be a direct dictation from God to an infallible stenographer, which I most assuredly do not. For one thing the story of Noah's Ark doesn't pass the laugh test. Rain falling at a rate that would cover the mountains in a few weeks would sink the USS Nimitz let alone a wooden boat laden with elephants, hippos, etc. Plus, though Bible defenders try to explain this away, a great many of the animals aboard this floating food chain would not be on the passenger list so much as the menu. Somebody just made it up. If you seek spiritual enlightenment to be the best person you can be I applaud you, but don't adopt fanaticism; nothing good comes of it no matter what Moses claims the talking shrubbery told him.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fighting the Wrong "Elites"
The American political landscape is littered with examples of one group pitted against another. One such divide is what some on the right call the "culture war." As they frame it, this is a battle between salt of the earth "real" Americans who believe in traditional values, and their opponents, referred to as "liberal elites," whose views are more progressive, and who tend to live on either coast, especially in large metropolitan areas. For about the last forty-five years, the rivalry between these two factions has had very important electoral implications, raising the significance of this debate beyond just competing schools of thought in the marketplace of ideas.
Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.
That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.
The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.
Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."
Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.
That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.
The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.
Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."
Monday, August 30, 2010
Some Gave All Most Gave None
Wars call for broadly shared sacrifice. During WWII sixteen million Americans served in the armed forces; at maximum troop strength, about eight million served at once. More importantly, everyone on the home front sacrificed as well. That's what a country a war looks like even if that war isn't being fought on home soil. Civilians rationed goods because the military came first while they risked their lives defending everyone else. No one's life was unaffected by the war.
Our wars got smaller after WWII, but the Korean and Vietnam wars still had the draft so families from a broad cross section of America were asked to put their loved ones in harm's way. This is no longer the case. We haven't had a military draft since 1973, but we've sent troops to fight in conflicts large and small in the '80's, 90's, 00's and now 10's. We're increasingly asking a small few to bear what should be borne by the many. I don't want to muddy this discussion with a fiscal policy debate, but bellowing "We're a country at war!" and "Lower my taxes!" in the same breath would have been unthinkable anywhere in the world at any time in history except the United States in the 21st Century. The simultaneous belief that we're at war but shouldn't be inconvenienced by taxes, a draft or anything else betrays a troubling mindset I'll discuss in a moment, but first I want to talk about the heroic men and women who have served our country.
Whether through the old Billy Ray Cyrus song or some other source, you've probably heard the saying, "All gave some; some gave all" in reference to our war veterans. These words remind us that we owe these heroes more than we could ever repay. They have earned our support and our eternal gratitude. However, the quote only refers to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and those who paid a different price but served just as honorably. If we expand the circle to describe our entire "country at war" right now we should say, "Some gave all; most gave none."
Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day without question or hesitation. That's the code of the warrior and they view their incredible selflessness as nothing more that doing their duty. Even those who sustain severe, debilitating injuries often want to go back to their units and continue the fight! Let me repeat, we owe a debt to these heroes that is far too large to ever repay. Since the troops think only of duty and honor without regard to their own safety, we must be unwavering in our commitment to only place them in the mortal danger when absolutely necessary. To do otherwise is to hold this supreme sacrifice cheap, which would be an abomination that defies words.
While we would never deliberately treat our fighting men and women so recklessly, there's a danger to citizens clamoring for war while they have no skin in the game. People love to imperiously say, "off with their heads!" any time someone in the world displeases them, and unless those urges are tempered by the horrific reality of war, it's far too easy to violate our sacred covenant with the military by effectively regarding these precious young lives as cannon fodder.
Last month the nation closely watched the saga of Lindsay Lohan but few noticed that we also lost 65 troops in Afghanistan, which is our worst monthly loss to date. More than half of the fallen will never see a 25th birthday. We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and it's time to reevaluate the mission and what we can expect to gain in exchange for this loss of life. Supporting our troops means advocating for them because they'll never say no to risking their lives for their country. We owe them our real support, not just the token effort of slapping a $5 ribbon-shaped magnet on a $30,000 SUV.
Our wars got smaller after WWII, but the Korean and Vietnam wars still had the draft so families from a broad cross section of America were asked to put their loved ones in harm's way. This is no longer the case. We haven't had a military draft since 1973, but we've sent troops to fight in conflicts large and small in the '80's, 90's, 00's and now 10's. We're increasingly asking a small few to bear what should be borne by the many. I don't want to muddy this discussion with a fiscal policy debate, but bellowing "We're a country at war!" and "Lower my taxes!" in the same breath would have been unthinkable anywhere in the world at any time in history except the United States in the 21st Century. The simultaneous belief that we're at war but shouldn't be inconvenienced by taxes, a draft or anything else betrays a troubling mindset I'll discuss in a moment, but first I want to talk about the heroic men and women who have served our country.
Whether through the old Billy Ray Cyrus song or some other source, you've probably heard the saying, "All gave some; some gave all" in reference to our war veterans. These words remind us that we owe these heroes more than we could ever repay. They have earned our support and our eternal gratitude. However, the quote only refers to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and those who paid a different price but served just as honorably. If we expand the circle to describe our entire "country at war" right now we should say, "Some gave all; most gave none."
Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day without question or hesitation. That's the code of the warrior and they view their incredible selflessness as nothing more that doing their duty. Even those who sustain severe, debilitating injuries often want to go back to their units and continue the fight! Let me repeat, we owe a debt to these heroes that is far too large to ever repay. Since the troops think only of duty and honor without regard to their own safety, we must be unwavering in our commitment to only place them in the mortal danger when absolutely necessary. To do otherwise is to hold this supreme sacrifice cheap, which would be an abomination that defies words.
While we would never deliberately treat our fighting men and women so recklessly, there's a danger to citizens clamoring for war while they have no skin in the game. People love to imperiously say, "off with their heads!" any time someone in the world displeases them, and unless those urges are tempered by the horrific reality of war, it's far too easy to violate our sacred covenant with the military by effectively regarding these precious young lives as cannon fodder.
Last month the nation closely watched the saga of Lindsay Lohan but few noticed that we also lost 65 troops in Afghanistan, which is our worst monthly loss to date. More than half of the fallen will never see a 25th birthday. We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and it's time to reevaluate the mission and what we can expect to gain in exchange for this loss of life. Supporting our troops means advocating for them because they'll never say no to risking their lives for their country. We owe them our real support, not just the token effort of slapping a $5 ribbon-shaped magnet on a $30,000 SUV.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
From "I Have a Dream" to "I Have a Delusion"
What a difference 47 years can make. On this date in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his immortal "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. That address helped inspire a nation to finally take on the difficult task of abolishing a deeply ingrained system of oppression and injustice. As such, it was a transformative event in the annals of American history. Today, 47 years later, right wing broadcaster Glenn Beck is holding a rally on the same site. I want to discuss some of the similarities and some of the differences between Martin Luther King and Glenn Beck.
First, with respect to the similarities, both men always seemed to make a lot of angry white people angrier, King because he threatened the unjust white stranglehold on power and Beck because deliberately provoking white fear and anger is how he makes his living. While his broadcasts may also happen to contain other elements, his principal objective is to fan the flames of wild-eyed paranoia. Removing this from Glenn Beck's show is like taking the guitar away from Jimi Hendrix.
Another similarity is that Dr. King, as a visionary, could see things that didn't yet exist such as a far more just society. One of Glenn Beck's most prominent characteristics is his unusual tendency to see things that don't exist such as secret FEMA concentration camps or how empathy leads to genocide. The former example was so wacky that Beck ultimately had to go on the air and admit these camps didn't exist. You know something is nuts if it's too far out there for Glenn Beck! That's like being too fast to be a sprinter or too beautiful to be a model -- it's hard to even fathom the concept.
With respect to differences, Dr. King always took the high road and spoke from and to the better side of human nature no matter what horrific examples of man's inhumanity to man he encountered. Martin Luther King encouraged his followers to reject bitter emotions and embrace the nobler Christian ideals of charity and compassion as they struggled to make the world a better place. Glenn Beck does the exact opposite, doing everything in his power to bring out the worst in people. Although this clip is just a piece of comedy, Lewis Black's "Glenn Back Has Nazi Tourette's" illustrates how Glenn Beck can liken anything, no matter how innocuous, to Nazism. He uses Nazi Germany because this is the most hideous nightmare the masses can easily picture. By constantly comparing whatever he dislikes to the most terrifying evil he can conjure up, he achieves his goal of injecting the maximum amount of fear and hatred into the hearts and minds of his audience.
All of this said, I watched most of today's event online and I found it pretty inoffensive. Those who said this would be apolitical proved to be right and those of us who said in effect, "yeah, right!" were wrong. I didn't see him, Sarah Palin, or anyone else say anything too obnoxious. Even if they did once or twice and I missed it, that's perfectly acceptable playing to the crowd. Seeing the rally play out as it did was like expecting a Rolling Stones concert to be full of their hits from the last 45 years, only to see them perform nothing but two hours of polkas. For those of you who missed the event altogether, here's the Reader's Digest version: Our soldiers are heroes and God is great. Except that people have differing views on religious matters, this was about as controversial as asserting that Siberia gets nippy in the winter. I expected to see something resembling the Glenn Beck Show and instead I saw an Amway rally or Come to Jesus Revival Meeting.
I hope this saner, more decent Glenn Beck is a sign of things to come.
First, with respect to the similarities, both men always seemed to make a lot of angry white people angrier, King because he threatened the unjust white stranglehold on power and Beck because deliberately provoking white fear and anger is how he makes his living. While his broadcasts may also happen to contain other elements, his principal objective is to fan the flames of wild-eyed paranoia. Removing this from Glenn Beck's show is like taking the guitar away from Jimi Hendrix.
Another similarity is that Dr. King, as a visionary, could see things that didn't yet exist such as a far more just society. One of Glenn Beck's most prominent characteristics is his unusual tendency to see things that don't exist such as secret FEMA concentration camps or how empathy leads to genocide. The former example was so wacky that Beck ultimately had to go on the air and admit these camps didn't exist. You know something is nuts if it's too far out there for Glenn Beck! That's like being too fast to be a sprinter or too beautiful to be a model -- it's hard to even fathom the concept.
With respect to differences, Dr. King always took the high road and spoke from and to the better side of human nature no matter what horrific examples of man's inhumanity to man he encountered. Martin Luther King encouraged his followers to reject bitter emotions and embrace the nobler Christian ideals of charity and compassion as they struggled to make the world a better place. Glenn Beck does the exact opposite, doing everything in his power to bring out the worst in people. Although this clip is just a piece of comedy, Lewis Black's "Glenn Back Has Nazi Tourette's" illustrates how Glenn Beck can liken anything, no matter how innocuous, to Nazism. He uses Nazi Germany because this is the most hideous nightmare the masses can easily picture. By constantly comparing whatever he dislikes to the most terrifying evil he can conjure up, he achieves his goal of injecting the maximum amount of fear and hatred into the hearts and minds of his audience.
All of this said, I watched most of today's event online and I found it pretty inoffensive. Those who said this would be apolitical proved to be right and those of us who said in effect, "yeah, right!" were wrong. I didn't see him, Sarah Palin, or anyone else say anything too obnoxious. Even if they did once or twice and I missed it, that's perfectly acceptable playing to the crowd. Seeing the rally play out as it did was like expecting a Rolling Stones concert to be full of their hits from the last 45 years, only to see them perform nothing but two hours of polkas. For those of you who missed the event altogether, here's the Reader's Digest version: Our soldiers are heroes and God is great. Except that people have differing views on religious matters, this was about as controversial as asserting that Siberia gets nippy in the winter. I expected to see something resembling the Glenn Beck Show and instead I saw an Amway rally or Come to Jesus Revival Meeting.
I hope this saner, more decent Glenn Beck is a sign of things to come.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Danger Facing the United States of Oz
I feel as though I'm living in the Land of Oz. I see hate merchants without hearts using their "fear and smear" campaign to manipulate people who lack the brains to understand they're being duped, and an opposition refusing to openly condemn these wicked charlatans and exalt our better angels because they don't have the courage. Haters and cowards and dopes, oh my! Haters and cowards and dopes, oh my! We all bear some responsibility for this state of affairs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me every time you open your mouth, and there's something pathologically wrong with both of us. This trend doesn't require anywhere near 100% participation to do tremendous damage, so the fact that some rise above this doesn't relieve the problem.
The general public bears the most blame, but that doesn't absolve anyone else. The least blameworthy are the "leaders" who should take principled stands but choose to be cautious instead. Yes, they should have integrity and the courage of their convictions, but if we enlist them to fight the good fight, only to crucify them for telling us the unpopular truth, we can hardly fault them for saluting us with one finger. As far as the purveyors of fear and hatred go, yes, they're despicable but we're supporting them. Rush Limbaugh is a wretched persona whose every broadcast is like an upper decker in America's toilet, but we've made him the biggest thing on radio since Fr. Coughlin broadcast his anti-Semitic screeds in the 1930's. We've always had an abundant supply of people who spew ignorance and hatred. Our demand for these shrill voices is what fluctuates, and at the moment we can't get enough. In the infancy of Obama's presidency, RNC chairman Michael Steele learned the peril of speaking the truth about Rush Limbaugh. He conceded that what Rush did was incendiary and ugly. The ensuing firestorm forced Steele to crawl on his hands and knees to kiss Rush's ring. Again, we want people to martyr themselves by speaking the truth, but we should recognize that self-preservation is a hard-wired instinct.
There are real costs to what's happening. We're unable to forge the cooperation we need to address the crises ravaging our lives. I understand that Democrats are in power and Republicans as an opposition party have different ideas. Opposition is healthy, but they're not acting as opponents; they're acting as enemies. Political opponents see things differently and offer different prescriptions to cure our ills. Political enemies are solely interested in their rivals' demise. Right now Republicans seek to destroy this administration. If President Obama says A, Republicans swear that B is the only answer. Had he said B, they would swear that A is the only answer. Lawmakers have a duty to put aside their differences and work for the public good. Deliberately prolonging the suffering of the American people is unconscionable and unforgivable.
The rampant spread of anti-Islamic bigotry is also a potentially catastrophic problem. While difficult to quantify and measure, there's a cost to poisoning our national soul. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 25% of Americans (42% of Republicans) believe local communities should be able to forbid the construction of mosques. Only 47% of Republicans believe that Muslims should have the same right to worship as other faiths! Among the majority of Republicans who would deny 1st Amendment rights to Muslims, I bet most of them scream about Obama not honoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. I also bet they don't see their hypocrisy. I'm troubled that as President Obama is increasingly portrayed as the bogeyman, he's also increasingly believed to be Muslim. Among Republicans, 31% say he's a Muslim and only 27% correctly identify him as a Christian.
More importantly, we have military personnel risking their lives in Islamic lands trying to stop terrorism. This is not conventional warfare where we exert force until they say Uncle. Hearts and minds are the central front in this campaign. If we continue to convey the message that Islam itself is our enemy, then we will have done to ourselves what our enemy is incapable of doing -- we will have made our failure an iron-clad guarantee. We're not there yet, but we're taking dangerously idiotic steps in that direction. Effectively telling the Islamic world that the sleazy strip club near "Ground zero" doesn't defile this sacred ground but their house of worship does is a slap in the face that should deeply offend them.
It's not too late for cooler heads to prevail and pull us back from the brink. Let's return to a United States that isn't dominated by hatred and division. That country is my home and, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home..."
The general public bears the most blame, but that doesn't absolve anyone else. The least blameworthy are the "leaders" who should take principled stands but choose to be cautious instead. Yes, they should have integrity and the courage of their convictions, but if we enlist them to fight the good fight, only to crucify them for telling us the unpopular truth, we can hardly fault them for saluting us with one finger. As far as the purveyors of fear and hatred go, yes, they're despicable but we're supporting them. Rush Limbaugh is a wretched persona whose every broadcast is like an upper decker in America's toilet, but we've made him the biggest thing on radio since Fr. Coughlin broadcast his anti-Semitic screeds in the 1930's. We've always had an abundant supply of people who spew ignorance and hatred. Our demand for these shrill voices is what fluctuates, and at the moment we can't get enough. In the infancy of Obama's presidency, RNC chairman Michael Steele learned the peril of speaking the truth about Rush Limbaugh. He conceded that what Rush did was incendiary and ugly. The ensuing firestorm forced Steele to crawl on his hands and knees to kiss Rush's ring. Again, we want people to martyr themselves by speaking the truth, but we should recognize that self-preservation is a hard-wired instinct.
There are real costs to what's happening. We're unable to forge the cooperation we need to address the crises ravaging our lives. I understand that Democrats are in power and Republicans as an opposition party have different ideas. Opposition is healthy, but they're not acting as opponents; they're acting as enemies. Political opponents see things differently and offer different prescriptions to cure our ills. Political enemies are solely interested in their rivals' demise. Right now Republicans seek to destroy this administration. If President Obama says A, Republicans swear that B is the only answer. Had he said B, they would swear that A is the only answer. Lawmakers have a duty to put aside their differences and work for the public good. Deliberately prolonging the suffering of the American people is unconscionable and unforgivable.
The rampant spread of anti-Islamic bigotry is also a potentially catastrophic problem. While difficult to quantify and measure, there's a cost to poisoning our national soul. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 25% of Americans (42% of Republicans) believe local communities should be able to forbid the construction of mosques. Only 47% of Republicans believe that Muslims should have the same right to worship as other faiths! Among the majority of Republicans who would deny 1st Amendment rights to Muslims, I bet most of them scream about Obama not honoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. I also bet they don't see their hypocrisy. I'm troubled that as President Obama is increasingly portrayed as the bogeyman, he's also increasingly believed to be Muslim. Among Republicans, 31% say he's a Muslim and only 27% correctly identify him as a Christian.
More importantly, we have military personnel risking their lives in Islamic lands trying to stop terrorism. This is not conventional warfare where we exert force until they say Uncle. Hearts and minds are the central front in this campaign. If we continue to convey the message that Islam itself is our enemy, then we will have done to ourselves what our enemy is incapable of doing -- we will have made our failure an iron-clad guarantee. We're not there yet, but we're taking dangerously idiotic steps in that direction. Effectively telling the Islamic world that the sleazy strip club near "Ground zero" doesn't defile this sacred ground but their house of worship does is a slap in the face that should deeply offend them.
It's not too late for cooler heads to prevail and pull us back from the brink. Let's return to a United States that isn't dominated by hatred and division. That country is my home and, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home..."
Sunday, August 22, 2010
America Isn't Easy; It's Not Supposed to Be
Despite the problems causing widespread suffering and anxiety across the country, our national conversation is once again being dominated by nonsense. Apart from diverting our focus from more pressing matters, I'm troubled because such issues only get so much attention because they appeal to our baser instincts and worst selves. In this case, the dust-up concerns what some are calling the "Ground Zero Mosque" or "Mosque at Ground Zero." The proposed Islamic cultural center to which they refer will include, among other things, space for Islamic prayer, which is why it's being called a mosque. However, it's not at "Ground zero." I'm not nitpicking; the implication that a mosque was being built on or at this site is no accident. It was calculated to provoke our inner demons of rage and hatred in a way that correctly identifying it as an Islamic cultural center blocks away from "Ground zero" couldn't do.
While some of the rhetoric against this project reflects ignorance or bigotry, most of the opponents are reasonable people of goodwill. They simply believe that the owners of the building have a right to build their center there but shouldn't exercise that right because the proximity to the former World Trade Center offends people's sensibilities. I'm sympathetic to their position, but I can't support it. I'm reminded of a great speech from the movie, The American President, in which fictional president Andrew Shepherd celebrates the magnificent complexity of the U.S. with these words: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
The point is that people are very often offended because others have rights; that's precisely why we have rights in the first place! We wouldn't bother to enshrine a right unless we had a legitimate fear that at some point we would try to deny someone the privileges protected by that right. This is the very reason we venerate the vision of our country's founders. They wisely foresaw the pitfalls we would encounter, and they designed a system to save us from ourselves. Just as a good parent childproofs a home with a toddler, our founding fathers rabble-proofed our emerging democracy. They understood two critical things: 1) Our passions would become inflamed and 2) inflamed passions are the mortal enemies of reason and justice. Rights are designed to safeguard our society by protecting the entitlements of the unpopular against an angry mob. Whenever we've abandoned fundamental American principles because we were scared or angry and it felt good to dispense with our core values and give in to our demons, we later looked back with shame and regret. Our visionary leaders sought to insulate us from this type of folly.
While an open celebration of Islam anywhere near "Ground zero" may feel inappropriate, unless we're prepared to blame all Muslims for the horrific acts of 0.000001% of the Islamic population, the objection doesn't hold up. They're not building the Osama bin-Laden Jihad Center and Playground (film of the terrorist training camps suggests they love monkey bars). We weren't attacked by Islam, but by a few despicable and hopelessly misguided fanatics who don't speak for over a billion people. Thus, the claims that it's like putting a swastika by the Holocaust Museum or a symbol of Japan by Pearl Harbor miss the point. The closest analogy I can come up with (also flawed) is that it's like putting a Lutheran church a few blocks from the Holocaust Museum.
Insisting that Park 51 (the actual name for the "Ground Zero Mosque") be moved sounds like saying in 1960 North Carolina, "Hey, I ain't saying them people can't eat lunch, I just think they should do it somewhere else. Race mixing our lunch counters not only goes against the Bible but it offends local sensibilities." It also reminds me of the gay rights struggle because it seems to imply that being a closeted Muslim is OK but publicly displaying your pride is offensive. Islam is not synonymous with anti-American terrorism just as Christianity doesn't equal vicious hatred of America just because the Westboro Baptists celebrate dead American soldiers with signs saying "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
We're better than this and we can either figure that out now or look back in shame later.
While some of the rhetoric against this project reflects ignorance or bigotry, most of the opponents are reasonable people of goodwill. They simply believe that the owners of the building have a right to build their center there but shouldn't exercise that right because the proximity to the former World Trade Center offends people's sensibilities. I'm sympathetic to their position, but I can't support it. I'm reminded of a great speech from the movie, The American President, in which fictional president Andrew Shepherd celebrates the magnificent complexity of the U.S. with these words: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
The point is that people are very often offended because others have rights; that's precisely why we have rights in the first place! We wouldn't bother to enshrine a right unless we had a legitimate fear that at some point we would try to deny someone the privileges protected by that right. This is the very reason we venerate the vision of our country's founders. They wisely foresaw the pitfalls we would encounter, and they designed a system to save us from ourselves. Just as a good parent childproofs a home with a toddler, our founding fathers rabble-proofed our emerging democracy. They understood two critical things: 1) Our passions would become inflamed and 2) inflamed passions are the mortal enemies of reason and justice. Rights are designed to safeguard our society by protecting the entitlements of the unpopular against an angry mob. Whenever we've abandoned fundamental American principles because we were scared or angry and it felt good to dispense with our core values and give in to our demons, we later looked back with shame and regret. Our visionary leaders sought to insulate us from this type of folly.
While an open celebration of Islam anywhere near "Ground zero" may feel inappropriate, unless we're prepared to blame all Muslims for the horrific acts of 0.000001% of the Islamic population, the objection doesn't hold up. They're not building the Osama bin-Laden Jihad Center and Playground (film of the terrorist training camps suggests they love monkey bars). We weren't attacked by Islam, but by a few despicable and hopelessly misguided fanatics who don't speak for over a billion people. Thus, the claims that it's like putting a swastika by the Holocaust Museum or a symbol of Japan by Pearl Harbor miss the point. The closest analogy I can come up with (also flawed) is that it's like putting a Lutheran church a few blocks from the Holocaust Museum.
Insisting that Park 51 (the actual name for the "Ground Zero Mosque") be moved sounds like saying in 1960 North Carolina, "Hey, I ain't saying them people can't eat lunch, I just think they should do it somewhere else. Race mixing our lunch counters not only goes against the Bible but it offends local sensibilities." It also reminds me of the gay rights struggle because it seems to imply that being a closeted Muslim is OK but publicly displaying your pride is offensive. Islam is not synonymous with anti-American terrorism just as Christianity doesn't equal vicious hatred of America just because the Westboro Baptists celebrate dead American soldiers with signs saying "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
We're better than this and we can either figure that out now or look back in shame later.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Obtuse Angle
To paraphrase something I read before George W. Bush's reelection, Harry Reid is toast but for a toaster. The Senate Majority Leader faces a litany of problems that should render him almost unelectable. He has low approval and high disapproval ratings with a large percentage of strong disapproval. If we also consider the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the nation, Nevada's economic woes and buyer's remorse over electing President Obama (he won the state with 55% of the vote but his current approval rating in Nevada is lower than the national average), and the fact that among Nevada's likely voters, self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by a margin of nearly two to one, Senator Reid is in serious trouble.
Republicans were given a wide margin of error in their effort to flip this important seat. Any credible candidate would automatically become a prohibitive favorite to win simply by virtue of Reid's challenges. I'm pretty sure Nevada Republicans could have successfully run Wayne Newton. However, to a rousing chorus of "Danke Schoen" from Democrats everywhere, they chose one of the few Nevadans who could actually lose to Senator Reid. To use a baseball analogy, Republicans only had to hold onto their 10 run lead in the bottom of the 9th inning. Then they went to the bullpen for the righty, Sharron Angle.
If Reid manages to hold his seat, Republicans will learn a painful lesson about overindulging the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party, or as I call this subgroup, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. I suppose at some point we'll get used to Sharron Angle, but for the moment her antics are still jaw-dropping. Indeed, part of me suspects that after the election we'll see a movie in the vein of Borat, at which point we'll learn that she was only toying with us. While this is unlikely, it still seems more plausible than a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate who is this bad.
I remember a sitcom episode in the 70's, in which a Ted Baxter style character (possibly Ted Baxter) was running for office and his handlers, whenever told that the candidate would be asked questions, responded with stammering trepidation, "H...hard questions?" We all laughed, but that fictional character is essentially the real Sharron Angle. I'm not exaggerating when I say that she holds "press conferences" and runs for daylight before anyone can ask a single question.
There is good reason for Sharron Angle to evade the press. Her strategy is clear: She will only speak directly to the far right and count on everyone else to vote against Harry Reid while knowing nothing about her. That would explain why she threatened to sue Senator Reid for publishing what she trumpeted on her own website as the reason to vote for her in the primary. Of course as soon as she won the primary, she wanted to erase all evidence of her positions in an effort to mislead either primary voters or general election voters by trying to sell different views to each electorate.
Among the jaw-dropping antics referred to above, she went on Fox News, an outlet very sympathetic to a right-wing candidate, but still shocked the host by proclaiming that the media should only ask the questions she wants to answer. As the stunned broadcaster sat there asking himself if she could really be that naive, she smirked and took the opportunity to twice squeeze in free plugs for her website and beg for $25 donations. This reminded me of people who would call into serious radio and television shows just so they could blurt out, "Howard Stern" and hang up. Like these puerile Stern fans, Sharron Angle is an intellectual toddler who is no more qualified to serve in the Senate than she is to play nose tackle for the Redskins.
Her outrageous positions, for instance, women are wrong to work instead of staying home to raise children, gay adoption should be illegal, teen rape victims should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancies to term, Democrats are idolaters who literally worship government as their god, etc. make good headlines but would make abysmal law. Not only does she have no new ideas, she doesn't have any that weren't already frayed around the edges 40 years ago. She brings absolutely nothing of value to the table and we can't afford to waste a Senate seat on her.
Republicans were given a wide margin of error in their effort to flip this important seat. Any credible candidate would automatically become a prohibitive favorite to win simply by virtue of Reid's challenges. I'm pretty sure Nevada Republicans could have successfully run Wayne Newton. However, to a rousing chorus of "Danke Schoen" from Democrats everywhere, they chose one of the few Nevadans who could actually lose to Senator Reid. To use a baseball analogy, Republicans only had to hold onto their 10 run lead in the bottom of the 9th inning. Then they went to the bullpen for the righty, Sharron Angle.
If Reid manages to hold his seat, Republicans will learn a painful lesson about overindulging the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party, or as I call this subgroup, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. I suppose at some point we'll get used to Sharron Angle, but for the moment her antics are still jaw-dropping. Indeed, part of me suspects that after the election we'll see a movie in the vein of Borat, at which point we'll learn that she was only toying with us. While this is unlikely, it still seems more plausible than a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate who is this bad.
I remember a sitcom episode in the 70's, in which a Ted Baxter style character (possibly Ted Baxter) was running for office and his handlers, whenever told that the candidate would be asked questions, responded with stammering trepidation, "H...hard questions?" We all laughed, but that fictional character is essentially the real Sharron Angle. I'm not exaggerating when I say that she holds "press conferences" and runs for daylight before anyone can ask a single question.
There is good reason for Sharron Angle to evade the press. Her strategy is clear: She will only speak directly to the far right and count on everyone else to vote against Harry Reid while knowing nothing about her. That would explain why she threatened to sue Senator Reid for publishing what she trumpeted on her own website as the reason to vote for her in the primary. Of course as soon as she won the primary, she wanted to erase all evidence of her positions in an effort to mislead either primary voters or general election voters by trying to sell different views to each electorate.
Among the jaw-dropping antics referred to above, she went on Fox News, an outlet very sympathetic to a right-wing candidate, but still shocked the host by proclaiming that the media should only ask the questions she wants to answer. As the stunned broadcaster sat there asking himself if she could really be that naive, she smirked and took the opportunity to twice squeeze in free plugs for her website and beg for $25 donations. This reminded me of people who would call into serious radio and television shows just so they could blurt out, "Howard Stern" and hang up. Like these puerile Stern fans, Sharron Angle is an intellectual toddler who is no more qualified to serve in the Senate than she is to play nose tackle for the Redskins.
Her outrageous positions, for instance, women are wrong to work instead of staying home to raise children, gay adoption should be illegal, teen rape victims should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancies to term, Democrats are idolaters who literally worship government as their god, etc. make good headlines but would make abysmal law. Not only does she have no new ideas, she doesn't have any that weren't already frayed around the edges 40 years ago. She brings absolutely nothing of value to the table and we can't afford to waste a Senate seat on her.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Who Would Jesus Bully?
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." This message has apparently been lost on some Catholic schools, because they're sending children away if they have two mommies. Most recently, a school in Hingham, Massachusetts has been at the center of the controversy, as was a school in Boulder, Colorado in March. The Massachusetts story has a slightly happier ending than Colorado's, but neither is cause for celebration. The Boston Archdiocese is trying to find another Catholic school that the rejected child can attend; presumably there is one in the archdiocese that doesn't believe its mission is to be the sanctimonious antithesis of Christian charity and compassion. In the Boulder case, the Archbishop of Denver supported the decision to ban the preschooler, asserting that the parents chose to disqualify the child from enrollment because they live "in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals."
This is where the church both loses and disgusts me. The implication that students are disqualified if their parents openly flout Catholic teaching on faith or morals is a patent fraud and anyone who would make such a claim is lying through his or her bigoted teeth, because they don't ban children of divorced parents. Jesus was very clear that marriage could only be ended by death. Remarriage is considered adultery, a sin surely more egregious than homosexuality. Adultery hit the big time in terms of no-nos going back to the time of Moses, and homosexuality is the biblical equivalent of eating a ham sandwich, like the ones I used to buy in the cafeteria of my Catholic school. Now in fairness, according to Catholic doctrine, there is nothing wrong with eating ham and homosexuality is condemned, but by no reckoning can it be painted as a greater moral failing than adultery or divorce.
The church has decided to pick its battles not based on moral principle, but rather on expediency. It's easy for them to pick on gays but not on divorcees, so just as any other morally bankrupt bully would do, they fight only the fights they can easily win, not the fights that are worth fighting. The church opposes abortion as though it were the greatest evil in our time. Thou shalt not kill! Well, that sounds simple enough, but what about war, particularly in instances that are not clearly matters of self-preservation? Opposing war isn't as easily sold in the pews, so rather than condemning war with the same zeal as abortion, the Catholic Church puts priests in uniform to bless the weapons that will kill men women and children whenever a government decides that it doesn't want its power eroded. Sure, killing is wrong, but we don't want to jeopardize having our own way, and if killing is what it takes to keep people in line, then church sanctioned killing we shall have. Please understand I'm neither condoning abortion, which with the rarest of exceptions is troubling even to ardent supporters of a woman's right to choose, nor am I condemning war, which I'm sad to say is often a necessary last resort. I'm simply advocating integrity and moral courage while condemning in the strongest possible terms the craven bullying of the weak by the powerful.
If I wanted advice on the decent, moral thing to do, I would never consult Archbishop Chaput of Denver or anyone else who values hypocritical self-righteousness over kindness.
This is where the church both loses and disgusts me. The implication that students are disqualified if their parents openly flout Catholic teaching on faith or morals is a patent fraud and anyone who would make such a claim is lying through his or her bigoted teeth, because they don't ban children of divorced parents. Jesus was very clear that marriage could only be ended by death. Remarriage is considered adultery, a sin surely more egregious than homosexuality. Adultery hit the big time in terms of no-nos going back to the time of Moses, and homosexuality is the biblical equivalent of eating a ham sandwich, like the ones I used to buy in the cafeteria of my Catholic school. Now in fairness, according to Catholic doctrine, there is nothing wrong with eating ham and homosexuality is condemned, but by no reckoning can it be painted as a greater moral failing than adultery or divorce.
The church has decided to pick its battles not based on moral principle, but rather on expediency. It's easy for them to pick on gays but not on divorcees, so just as any other morally bankrupt bully would do, they fight only the fights they can easily win, not the fights that are worth fighting. The church opposes abortion as though it were the greatest evil in our time. Thou shalt not kill! Well, that sounds simple enough, but what about war, particularly in instances that are not clearly matters of self-preservation? Opposing war isn't as easily sold in the pews, so rather than condemning war with the same zeal as abortion, the Catholic Church puts priests in uniform to bless the weapons that will kill men women and children whenever a government decides that it doesn't want its power eroded. Sure, killing is wrong, but we don't want to jeopardize having our own way, and if killing is what it takes to keep people in line, then church sanctioned killing we shall have. Please understand I'm neither condoning abortion, which with the rarest of exceptions is troubling even to ardent supporters of a woman's right to choose, nor am I condemning war, which I'm sad to say is often a necessary last resort. I'm simply advocating integrity and moral courage while condemning in the strongest possible terms the craven bullying of the weak by the powerful.
If I wanted advice on the decent, moral thing to do, I would never consult Archbishop Chaput of Denver or anyone else who values hypocritical self-righteousness over kindness.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Disastrous vs. the Unpalatable
Nearly a century after Otto von Bismarck famously said that politics is the art of the possible, economist John Kenneth Galbraith contradicted Bismarck in a letter to President Kennedy, advising that, "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." This is a worthy companion to Churchill's quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. These celebrations of the least bad option should be taken as signposts that might guide us back onto the path to sanity. We have become deluded by ridiculous expectations of all imaginable rewards without a trace of sacrifice or cost, and we need to abandon childish fantasy and face reality.
When all of our options are fraught with shortcomings, we have to choose the best of the flawed bunch and ignore the hysteria that will accompany endorsing something that isn't godlike in its perfection. Let's take the example of health care reform. For generations we've identified problems in our health care system, yet we've been unable to solve them, try as we might. Based on our impressive history of innovation, we can rule out the possibility that we are simply ineffective problem solvers, and conclude instead that we have failed to fix the system because there simply is no good solution that will satisfy everyone and we're hesitant to pick among the conspicuously flawed choices. We faced the following problem: Millions of people were uninsured because they either couldn't afford health insurance or couldn't obtain it from the market because of an existing health problem. More to the point, some of these people will need life saving medical treatment, so what do we do?
After being put through the legislative sausage grinder of compromise and special interest appeasement, we ultimately decided on a package that would, among other things, force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, in exchange for which we would require people to carry heath insurance so they couldn't cheat the actuarial tables by waiting until they needed care before buying insurance. Americans by nature despise having the government tell them what to do, but what was our better option? We could have maintained the status quo where the uninsured receive needed care despite their inability to pay. The costs are then paid by everyone else. Alternatively, we could deny care to those we believe will stiff us on the bill, but is that really a world in which anyone wants to live? Should we tell someone in desperate need of medical attention I'm sorry, but you have to go across the street and stand behind the L.D. (line of death) right behind the hysterical woman holding the convulsing child and screaming "Oh God Oh God! Won't someone please help my baby?!"
I'm fascinated and amused by those who are enraged because this insurance provision represents communism, socialism, etc. Let me see if I have this straight: The current situation in which the cost of the medical care for the uninsured is absorbed by others who can pay (to each according to his need, from each according to his ability) is NOT considered communism, but having people pay their own way by padding the bloated coffers of giant profit-making private insurance companies IS communism? What?!
Finally, we can't discuss the ranting about communism/socialism/fascism without talking about the bailouts and other actions taken to rescue the economy. By all accounts, the economy was facing imminent collapse if we didn't act quickly and decisively. The bailouts are perfect examples of the unpalatable being preferable to the disastrous. Some may rail against the extraordinary efforts to rescue our economy from utter devastation, but if they could peer into the world in which we would be living had we listened to them and kept the government out of it, they would sit down and shut and shut up in a hurry.
When all of our options are fraught with shortcomings, we have to choose the best of the flawed bunch and ignore the hysteria that will accompany endorsing something that isn't godlike in its perfection. Let's take the example of health care reform. For generations we've identified problems in our health care system, yet we've been unable to solve them, try as we might. Based on our impressive history of innovation, we can rule out the possibility that we are simply ineffective problem solvers, and conclude instead that we have failed to fix the system because there simply is no good solution that will satisfy everyone and we're hesitant to pick among the conspicuously flawed choices. We faced the following problem: Millions of people were uninsured because they either couldn't afford health insurance or couldn't obtain it from the market because of an existing health problem. More to the point, some of these people will need life saving medical treatment, so what do we do?
After being put through the legislative sausage grinder of compromise and special interest appeasement, we ultimately decided on a package that would, among other things, force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, in exchange for which we would require people to carry heath insurance so they couldn't cheat the actuarial tables by waiting until they needed care before buying insurance. Americans by nature despise having the government tell them what to do, but what was our better option? We could have maintained the status quo where the uninsured receive needed care despite their inability to pay. The costs are then paid by everyone else. Alternatively, we could deny care to those we believe will stiff us on the bill, but is that really a world in which anyone wants to live? Should we tell someone in desperate need of medical attention I'm sorry, but you have to go across the street and stand behind the L.D. (line of death) right behind the hysterical woman holding the convulsing child and screaming "Oh God Oh God! Won't someone please help my baby?!"
I'm fascinated and amused by those who are enraged because this insurance provision represents communism, socialism, etc. Let me see if I have this straight: The current situation in which the cost of the medical care for the uninsured is absorbed by others who can pay (to each according to his need, from each according to his ability) is NOT considered communism, but having people pay their own way by padding the bloated coffers of giant profit-making private insurance companies IS communism? What?!
Finally, we can't discuss the ranting about communism/socialism/fascism without talking about the bailouts and other actions taken to rescue the economy. By all accounts, the economy was facing imminent collapse if we didn't act quickly and decisively. The bailouts are perfect examples of the unpalatable being preferable to the disastrous. Some may rail against the extraordinary efforts to rescue our economy from utter devastation, but if they could peer into the world in which we would be living had we listened to them and kept the government out of it, they would sit down and shut and shut up in a hurry.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Is the Tea Cup Half Full of Half Empty?
As a political junkie, I've watched various trends and movements come and go, but I find the Tea Party oddly fascinating because, like so many other observers, I still don't quite know what to make of them. They have certainly generated more buzz than their size would seem to warrant. It's entertaining to watch commentators and journalists spending inordinate amounts of time discussing this group, if only to tell us that journalists and commentators are spending inordinate amounts of time discussing this group. The Tea Party movement seems to be something of a political Rorschach test that different people look at and see very different things.
The Tea Party was essentially formed from various factions of the political right although there are exceptions. The most obvious constituency are those who think that the government has grossly overstepped its mandate, and the processes through which it has illegitimately seized power and insinuated itself increasingly into our lives must be reversed. They believe in a very strict and narrow interpretation of the Constitution and they wear three-cornered hats to celebrating the patriots of the late 18th Century, the era in which both the original Boston Tea Party took place and the Constitution was framed. If this were the movement's only core group then they would be garden variety small government conservatives. However, there are other elements that make this movement different.
If those wearing the felt three-corner hats represent one core Tea Party group, then another part of the its base should be wearing hats of any shape as long as they're made of tin foil. This is the crazy conspiracy theory lunatic fringe. The final group I want to discuss should be wearing hats made of any material as long as they're tall, pointy and fashioned to be worn over a hood. These groups are undeniably a part of the movement, but the bone of contention between supporters and detractors concerns their relative size. Advocates say that you will find kooks and bigots in any group and this one is no exception. They should be no more stained by these elements than the local Elks Club, union hall or bowling league. Opponents argue that while any large organization will have some bad apples, the share of teabaggers driven by hatred is so disproportionately high that without these people the movement would be dramatically reduced. This is the crux of the disagreement. Those who see the unsavory characters as a fringe to be found in any group praise the movement, and those who see them as one of the main pillars of the Tea Party condemn the movement. As is often the case, the truth may lie in the middle.
At its best, the Tea Party can be to politics what Paddy Chayefsky's 1976 satirical masterpiece, Network was to TV. They both essentially implore the masses to run to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!" With 30 years of reckless deficit spending putting our future in hock, someone needs to sound a clarion call. At its worst, the Tea Party summons humanity's baser side, promoting the fear and hatred that will shame us once we return to our senses. Yes, if the policies of this administration were being advanced by a president who was a blue-eyed Mayflower descendant named James Wellington, there would still be strong and vocal opposition, but we wouldn't see the level of insanity we're seeing now. Too many people who were already uneasy about having insufficient control over their lives see the election of this president as their "Leave it to Beaver" world being preempted by "Soul Train" and they've gone stark raving mad.
The claims that President Obama is essentially the living embodiment of Leon Trotsky, or that he's a Kenyan born Muslim, or other nonsense coming from teabaggers destroy the Tea Party's credibility and that's a shame because someone does need to speak up about the troubling gap between the government's spending and its revenue. Speaking of which, they also lose credibility when they claim their rage comes from big government spending piling on debt, but they applaud George W. Bush's presidency. Likewise, they can't be taken seriously when they roundly support Medicare (a system where the government seizes your money through taxation to fund a single-payer health care system) while simultaneously saying that a mandate to carry health insurance is a cataclysmic socialist nightmare that reminds them of Hitler. If they stuck to a legitimate argument against big government, they could potentially have an important voice.
The Tea Party was essentially formed from various factions of the political right although there are exceptions. The most obvious constituency are those who think that the government has grossly overstepped its mandate, and the processes through which it has illegitimately seized power and insinuated itself increasingly into our lives must be reversed. They believe in a very strict and narrow interpretation of the Constitution and they wear three-cornered hats to celebrating the patriots of the late 18th Century, the era in which both the original Boston Tea Party took place and the Constitution was framed. If this were the movement's only core group then they would be garden variety small government conservatives. However, there are other elements that make this movement different.
If those wearing the felt three-corner hats represent one core Tea Party group, then another part of the its base should be wearing hats of any shape as long as they're made of tin foil. This is the crazy conspiracy theory lunatic fringe. The final group I want to discuss should be wearing hats made of any material as long as they're tall, pointy and fashioned to be worn over a hood. These groups are undeniably a part of the movement, but the bone of contention between supporters and detractors concerns their relative size. Advocates say that you will find kooks and bigots in any group and this one is no exception. They should be no more stained by these elements than the local Elks Club, union hall or bowling league. Opponents argue that while any large organization will have some bad apples, the share of teabaggers driven by hatred is so disproportionately high that without these people the movement would be dramatically reduced. This is the crux of the disagreement. Those who see the unsavory characters as a fringe to be found in any group praise the movement, and those who see them as one of the main pillars of the Tea Party condemn the movement. As is often the case, the truth may lie in the middle.
At its best, the Tea Party can be to politics what Paddy Chayefsky's 1976 satirical masterpiece, Network was to TV. They both essentially implore the masses to run to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!" With 30 years of reckless deficit spending putting our future in hock, someone needs to sound a clarion call. At its worst, the Tea Party summons humanity's baser side, promoting the fear and hatred that will shame us once we return to our senses. Yes, if the policies of this administration were being advanced by a president who was a blue-eyed Mayflower descendant named James Wellington, there would still be strong and vocal opposition, but we wouldn't see the level of insanity we're seeing now. Too many people who were already uneasy about having insufficient control over their lives see the election of this president as their "Leave it to Beaver" world being preempted by "Soul Train" and they've gone stark raving mad.
The claims that President Obama is essentially the living embodiment of Leon Trotsky, or that he's a Kenyan born Muslim, or other nonsense coming from teabaggers destroy the Tea Party's credibility and that's a shame because someone does need to speak up about the troubling gap between the government's spending and its revenue. Speaking of which, they also lose credibility when they claim their rage comes from big government spending piling on debt, but they applaud George W. Bush's presidency. Likewise, they can't be taken seriously when they roundly support Medicare (a system where the government seizes your money through taxation to fund a single-payer health care system) while simultaneously saying that a mandate to carry health insurance is a cataclysmic socialist nightmare that reminds them of Hitler. If they stuck to a legitimate argument against big government, they could potentially have an important voice.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Something Is Rotten in the State of Vatican City
After Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope by the College of Cardinals, he chose as his papal name Pope Benedict XVI. It would have been more fitting if he chose to be called Pope Chapter VII, because his elevation to pope coincides with the church's bankruptcy with respect to moral authority. We can no longer ignore the mountain of evidence that the Catholic hierarchy deliberately chose to protect the church from embarrassment and whatever retribution justice would demand, rather than protecting the most vulnerable and innocent victims of heinous abuse. I'm also satisfied that when we seek to identify all the guilty parties in this despicable web of callous inhumanity, we find a metaphorical smoking gun in the hand that now wears the Ring of the Fisherman.
My indictment of the church is not based on the deplorable actions of some disturbed priests but rather on the deliberate cover up, done in the cool dispassionate light of day, by more senior church officials. When some bishops and cardinals learned of the abuse, they were forced to confront a choice. They could either do the decent thing and protect innocent children from being raped and scarred for life, or they could circle the wagons, essentially aiding and abetting the continued unspeakable abuse. The church opted for the latter. It's not hard to understand the calculus underlying this decision, but it is hard to imagine how anyone can be so cold hearted and indifferent to the suffering of children. Taking steps to defrock the offending priests, or even suddenly reassigning their duties so they are kept away from children (i.e. additional victims) would certainly raise questions and could ultimately cause trouble for the church. If the truth were brought to light the church could face damaging lawsuits, lose members and face diminished power even among the faithful who remained. Also, while this is admittedly nothing but my own conjecture, I suspect the biggest fear for the church hierarchy was that this could be, for some Catholics, the thread that when pulled unravels the entire garment.
As blind faith is extremely important to a religious organization, the church has an understandable interest in taking a page from the Wizard of Oz and presenting their clergy as something more magnificent than the mere men behind the curtain that they are. Since the horrific moral failings of some priests can hamper the church's ability to perpetuate that illusion, the church has an incentive to conceal the abuse and allow more children to be violated. If those on the altar were exposed as being every bit as flawed, or in the case of the offending priests far more flawed, than those in the pews, bishops and cardinals could have nightmares of Catholics saying things like, "Yeah right, this guy is telling me what my penance is for having impure thoughts about another adult? Maybe you should get Tiger Woods in here to tell me how to be a good and faithful husband!" or "Sure, it's easy for the church to condemn birth control - 10 year old boys don't get pregnant." While such sentiments would be unfair, they're also predictable, and from the church's perspective, they are apparently to be avoided at any cost.
To make matters worse, the Vatican continues to act shamefully, marginalizing or dismissing the agony suffered by the victims by characterizing the scandal as "petty gossip" or saying the outrage is contrived, and those pursuing this matter are only doing so because they differ with the church on its teachings. There is a perverse irony that something called the Holy See could be so blind. If a superintendent of schools who learned that a teacher had been accused of raping students had acted the same way as senior church officials, he or she would have no chance of remaining employed. Even hardened prisoners know that those who abuse children are the worst of the worst and no agenda or parochial interest (pun intended) should trump protecting such innocent victims. Until the church takes full responsibility for its actions, it will remain putrefied, rotting from the mitred head down.
My indictment of the church is not based on the deplorable actions of some disturbed priests but rather on the deliberate cover up, done in the cool dispassionate light of day, by more senior church officials. When some bishops and cardinals learned of the abuse, they were forced to confront a choice. They could either do the decent thing and protect innocent children from being raped and scarred for life, or they could circle the wagons, essentially aiding and abetting the continued unspeakable abuse. The church opted for the latter. It's not hard to understand the calculus underlying this decision, but it is hard to imagine how anyone can be so cold hearted and indifferent to the suffering of children. Taking steps to defrock the offending priests, or even suddenly reassigning their duties so they are kept away from children (i.e. additional victims) would certainly raise questions and could ultimately cause trouble for the church. If the truth were brought to light the church could face damaging lawsuits, lose members and face diminished power even among the faithful who remained. Also, while this is admittedly nothing but my own conjecture, I suspect the biggest fear for the church hierarchy was that this could be, for some Catholics, the thread that when pulled unravels the entire garment.
As blind faith is extremely important to a religious organization, the church has an understandable interest in taking a page from the Wizard of Oz and presenting their clergy as something more magnificent than the mere men behind the curtain that they are. Since the horrific moral failings of some priests can hamper the church's ability to perpetuate that illusion, the church has an incentive to conceal the abuse and allow more children to be violated. If those on the altar were exposed as being every bit as flawed, or in the case of the offending priests far more flawed, than those in the pews, bishops and cardinals could have nightmares of Catholics saying things like, "Yeah right, this guy is telling me what my penance is for having impure thoughts about another adult? Maybe you should get Tiger Woods in here to tell me how to be a good and faithful husband!" or "Sure, it's easy for the church to condemn birth control - 10 year old boys don't get pregnant." While such sentiments would be unfair, they're also predictable, and from the church's perspective, they are apparently to be avoided at any cost.
To make matters worse, the Vatican continues to act shamefully, marginalizing or dismissing the agony suffered by the victims by characterizing the scandal as "petty gossip" or saying the outrage is contrived, and those pursuing this matter are only doing so because they differ with the church on its teachings. There is a perverse irony that something called the Holy See could be so blind. If a superintendent of schools who learned that a teacher had been accused of raping students had acted the same way as senior church officials, he or she would have no chance of remaining employed. Even hardened prisoners know that those who abuse children are the worst of the worst and no agenda or parochial interest (pun intended) should trump protecting such innocent victims. Until the church takes full responsibility for its actions, it will remain putrefied, rotting from the mitred head down.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Carpenters Wanted: Jackasses Need Not Apply
I have to admit I'm confused. It seems that people constantly complain about elected officials being no good because they don't really care about the people they serve; they only care about keeping their jobs. This widespread criticism suggests that politicians are bad because they choose to do the popular thing in order to get reelected instead of doing the responsible thing, which is their duty. Now people are enraged because legislators worked tirelessly to pass health care reform even though opinion polls showed considerable opposition. I don't understand how politicians can be condemned with equal ferocity for following the polls and for not following the polls.
For a long time, we've known that we have serious problems in our health care system, and for a long time we've tried in vain to institute comprehensive solutions. All such efforts failed precisely because these are thorny issues and in the absence of heroic visionaries, those who had the power to fix our system inevitably took the coward's way out and did nothing even if they knew something needed to be done. It takes extraordinary courage to soldier on and keep working towards an important goal knowing you will suffer an endless barrage of slings and arrows from those who don't have what it takes to do what needs to be done. Political hacks and cowards do only what's easy without regard to what's important; real leaders do what's important without regard to what's easy. As Sam Rayburn said, "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build it." We need carpenters and I'm immensely grateful that we have some. One good carpenter is infinitely more valuable to our society than the combined total of everyone attending the world's largest tea party for jackasses.
In addition to leadership on substantive issues, we need statesmanship to elevate the tone of the discourse. Even those who should be responsible voices of reason are acting disgracefully. I cringe when I see Sarah Palin get thunderous applause for knocking the "lame stream media" in an artless, ham-fisted play on the term mainstream media, which is itself a term the political far right uses with scorn because to them only that which is extremely slanted their way can be considered not slanted. Such is the world in which these people spend 168 hours a week. Listening to President Obama then to someone like Sarah Palin is like watching a Lincoln-Douglas debate then turning around to watch one five year old call another five year old a doody head. America needs better leaders than the Sarah Palins of the world if it aspires to be something other than a second rate laughingstock.
For a long time, we've known that we have serious problems in our health care system, and for a long time we've tried in vain to institute comprehensive solutions. All such efforts failed precisely because these are thorny issues and in the absence of heroic visionaries, those who had the power to fix our system inevitably took the coward's way out and did nothing even if they knew something needed to be done. It takes extraordinary courage to soldier on and keep working towards an important goal knowing you will suffer an endless barrage of slings and arrows from those who don't have what it takes to do what needs to be done. Political hacks and cowards do only what's easy without regard to what's important; real leaders do what's important without regard to what's easy. As Sam Rayburn said, "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build it." We need carpenters and I'm immensely grateful that we have some. One good carpenter is infinitely more valuable to our society than the combined total of everyone attending the world's largest tea party for jackasses.
In addition to leadership on substantive issues, we need statesmanship to elevate the tone of the discourse. Even those who should be responsible voices of reason are acting disgracefully. I cringe when I see Sarah Palin get thunderous applause for knocking the "lame stream media" in an artless, ham-fisted play on the term mainstream media, which is itself a term the political far right uses with scorn because to them only that which is extremely slanted their way can be considered not slanted. Such is the world in which these people spend 168 hours a week. Listening to President Obama then to someone like Sarah Palin is like watching a Lincoln-Douglas debate then turning around to watch one five year old call another five year old a doody head. America needs better leaders than the Sarah Palins of the world if it aspires to be something other than a second rate laughingstock.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Grumpy Old Pouters
A wise man once said, "You can't kill your parents then ask for sympathy because you're an orphan." G.O.P. lawmakers, as in Grumpy Old Pouters are now acting like petulant children because the bi-partisanship that they painstakingly murdered is now dead. They gambled on a strategy of trying to bring down a President rather than being responsible grownups and doing what we pay them to do, and they crapped out. In keeping with their inclination to take defeat in the manner of a spoiled brat, Senator John McCain has proclaimed that Republicans will not cooperate for the rest of the year. We know that Senator McCain can't possibly hold his breath that long, but it's not clear whether or not he actually stuck out his tongue or stamped his feet as his announced his intention not to play nicely with the other boys and girls.
With that, the cat is officially out of the cellophane bag. The wide eyed idealists who believed that Republicans in the Senate had at least a scintilla of good faith and were not solely concerned with obstructing those who sought to solve our problems, must now abandon the last shred of hope that such integrity existed. This is not to say that Republican lawmakers are inherently worse than Democrats, or that Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed; we have no way of knowing. However, in this case, it happens to be the Republicans and they deserve to be called out.
Unfortunately, this debacle persists as Republicans pursue some Machiavellian gains by using parliamentary gambits designed to both drag this out and to politically embarrass Democrats. Republican senators are working feverishly to find some excuse to change the bill's text so that it would have to go back to the House for yet another vote. The most regrettable aspect of the whole sordid affair is the transparent demagoguery and sleaze. Republicans are proposing poison pill amendments designed to both alter the bill and provide fodder for deliberately dishonorable and false advertising. For instance, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), introduced an amendment to bar coverage for erectile dysfunction medication for convicted sex offenders. Republicans intend use votes against this thinly veiled charade in ads specifically designed to deceive voters by mischaracterizing the votes as a desire on the part of Democratic lawmakers to use taxpayer money to give Viagra to monsters who rape children. Such deliberately misleading advertising for a product would cause significant FTC fines.
I want to make it clear that this only happens to be Republicans in this case. The sleazy demagoguery and win at any cost gutter politics cut across all party lines and political ideologies. That said, people need to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. I'm bothered because these are our leaders and we should to be able see them as something other than contemptible. Politicians acting without a sense of honor or decency corrode our democracy and further harm the already maligned though noble calling of public service. I know politics can be a bare knuckle street fight that sometimes gets pretty ugly, but we need to recognize what's beyond the pale and when to say stop it! You're disgracing your office and your country.
With that, the cat is officially out of the cellophane bag. The wide eyed idealists who believed that Republicans in the Senate had at least a scintilla of good faith and were not solely concerned with obstructing those who sought to solve our problems, must now abandon the last shred of hope that such integrity existed. This is not to say that Republican lawmakers are inherently worse than Democrats, or that Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed; we have no way of knowing. However, in this case, it happens to be the Republicans and they deserve to be called out.
Unfortunately, this debacle persists as Republicans pursue some Machiavellian gains by using parliamentary gambits designed to both drag this out and to politically embarrass Democrats. Republican senators are working feverishly to find some excuse to change the bill's text so that it would have to go back to the House for yet another vote. The most regrettable aspect of the whole sordid affair is the transparent demagoguery and sleaze. Republicans are proposing poison pill amendments designed to both alter the bill and provide fodder for deliberately dishonorable and false advertising. For instance, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), introduced an amendment to bar coverage for erectile dysfunction medication for convicted sex offenders. Republicans intend use votes against this thinly veiled charade in ads specifically designed to deceive voters by mischaracterizing the votes as a desire on the part of Democratic lawmakers to use taxpayer money to give Viagra to monsters who rape children. Such deliberately misleading advertising for a product would cause significant FTC fines.
I want to make it clear that this only happens to be Republicans in this case. The sleazy demagoguery and win at any cost gutter politics cut across all party lines and political ideologies. That said, people need to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. I'm bothered because these are our leaders and we should to be able see them as something other than contemptible. Politicians acting without a sense of honor or decency corrode our democracy and further harm the already maligned though noble calling of public service. I know politics can be a bare knuckle street fight that sometimes gets pretty ugly, but we need to recognize what's beyond the pale and when to say stop it! You're disgracing your office and your country.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Sky Is Falling...Again
After what feels like an interminable period of discussion, debate, compromise, and a tremendous amount of ranting and raving, Congress is now poised to cast a vote on a health care reform package later today. Of course, coincidental to that scheduled vote is the deadline for any last ditch fear-mongering. Once again, we have no shortage of Chicken Littles driving a legion of frightened Henny Pennies to hysteria with false claims that the sky is falling. As usual, yes, it's the end of the world (yawn). We are, at long last, taking action to fix some of the problems in our health care system, and this is provoking widespread panic that we will now be in the evil clutches of communism, fascism, of some other ism that some hopelessly deluded white guy can blame as the reason he won't earn $47.2 million next year, even though he has never earned more than $40,000 a year in his life and offers the free market nothing that would cause that to drastically change under any circumstance.
Sure, I can get a kick out of watching Rep. Steve King (R-IA), talk to Glenn Beck about the sacrilegious horror of this vote happening on the Sabbath in Lent, or Rep. Ron Broun (R-GA), lashing out against the bill as he makes sure to squeeze in a reference to "The Great War of Yankee Aggression." For those of you living in the 21st Century, he's talking about the Civil War, which ended for reasonable people 145 years ago. I'll admit that this has been mildly amusing theater of the absurd, but enough is enough. The dogs have barked and it's time for the caravan to move on. We've already paid far too much attention to silliness ranging from death panels to claims that this is literally the end of United States. When the most frightening bogeymen said to be lurking in this bill naturally don't materialize, I fully expect many of the ranters to say they never made such ridiculous claims. Depending on whether or not they actually believed their own nonsense, they will either go from ignorance to dishonesty or from one lie to another.
For those of you who are still terrified that this represents a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we've never seen before, as you cite Thomas Jefferson on the evils of a powerful central government, let's go to the history books, shall we? Over 200 years ago, President Jefferson spent the taxpayers' hard-earned money to buy land and double the size of the country. That too was thought to be an outrageous breach of the Constitution. Like the current health care debate, this was extremely divisive, and a vote to block the Louisiana Purchase barely failed in the House by a vote of 59-57. Let me go way out on a limb here and suggest that even health care would get pushed off the front page if President Obama went out and bought Canada.
We made the Louisiana Purchase. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now Jefferson is revered as the very model of someone believes in a tightly restrained central government. FDR passed a series of measures people claimed were Socialist and would destroy our country. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now FDR's image is on our dime. LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now those opposed to the current health care reforms are screaming about how it will take money away from Medicare. Do you see a pattern emerging? However the vote goes, we'll be just fine.
Sure, I can get a kick out of watching Rep. Steve King (R-IA), talk to Glenn Beck about the sacrilegious horror of this vote happening on the Sabbath in Lent, or Rep. Ron Broun (R-GA), lashing out against the bill as he makes sure to squeeze in a reference to "The Great War of Yankee Aggression." For those of you living in the 21st Century, he's talking about the Civil War, which ended for reasonable people 145 years ago. I'll admit that this has been mildly amusing theater of the absurd, but enough is enough. The dogs have barked and it's time for the caravan to move on. We've already paid far too much attention to silliness ranging from death panels to claims that this is literally the end of United States. When the most frightening bogeymen said to be lurking in this bill naturally don't materialize, I fully expect many of the ranters to say they never made such ridiculous claims. Depending on whether or not they actually believed their own nonsense, they will either go from ignorance to dishonesty or from one lie to another.
For those of you who are still terrified that this represents a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we've never seen before, as you cite Thomas Jefferson on the evils of a powerful central government, let's go to the history books, shall we? Over 200 years ago, President Jefferson spent the taxpayers' hard-earned money to buy land and double the size of the country. That too was thought to be an outrageous breach of the Constitution. Like the current health care debate, this was extremely divisive, and a vote to block the Louisiana Purchase barely failed in the House by a vote of 59-57. Let me go way out on a limb here and suggest that even health care would get pushed off the front page if President Obama went out and bought Canada.
We made the Louisiana Purchase. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now Jefferson is revered as the very model of someone believes in a tightly restrained central government. FDR passed a series of measures people claimed were Socialist and would destroy our country. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now FDR's image is on our dime. LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now those opposed to the current health care reforms are screaming about how it will take money away from Medicare. Do you see a pattern emerging? However the vote goes, we'll be just fine.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Girl from Itawamba
Feel free to sing along (to the tune of Girl from Ipanema): Brave and proud and young and lovely, the girl from Itawamba goes dancing...or, sadly, maybe she doesn't. Once again life is imitating art, with a small town in Bible country denying students a high school prom. The fictional Footloose had a happy ending with John Lithgow eventually seeing the light and Kevin Bacon dancing his way into our collective heart. I can only hope that the real life story ends as happily. In the current drama, the Itawamba County (MS) School District cancelled the senior prom rather than face and likely lose an ACLU lawsuit. The conflict stems from the school district pushing a policy that would not allow Constance McMillen, an 18 year-old senior at Itawamba County Agricultural High School to wear a tuxedo to the prom or bring her girlfriend as her date. Since the district was forced to choose between maintaining its bigotry and holding a prom, it opted for the former and cancelled the dance.
Particulars of this case aside, I want to discuss the response from a local pastor, which I suspect is fairly representative. Pastor Bobby Crenshaw of the Southside Baptist Church said that he has seen the South portrayed as "backwards" on websites discussing this matter, but he defended the community, by saying that, "A lot more people here have biblically based values." Even if we give Pastor Crenshaw a break and conveniently forget the biblical dictates not to judge one another and, more importantly, to treat others as you would have them treat you, let's compare the "biblically based values" by which the good people of Itawamba County presumably live to what the school district finds so objectionable. If ham, barbecue pork or a variety of other items were on the menu at the prom, the God-fearin' folk would have no objection, even though the Bible declares that eating such things is an abomination. Of course, gays and lesbians are to be condemned because the Bible also declares their sexuality an abomination. Anyone who ignores biblical condemnation of some things deemed abominable while claiming an obligation to honor other such condemnations that happen to suit them ("Hey, it's not like I want to be a sniveling bigot, but I owe it to my Lord and Savior") is a liar and a fraud. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong that's one thing, but don't tell me you do so because the Bible demands it unless you pay the same respect to other nonsense sprinkled liberally throughout that book.
Finally, I want to examine the sense of moral superiority that those who object to homosexuality seem to harbor. In all likelihood, these people did nothing heroic, moral or even voluntary. They were simply born into the majority. They deserve no kudos for resisting temptation that probably never existed. As a heterosexual I can explain how this works. During the early part of your life you are for all practical purposes asexual. Then one day interacting with the opposite sex goes from something to be avoided at all cost to something you would crawl across broken glass to do. It is as pre-programmed as right or left handedness. And speaking of which, I do happen to be left handed. Luckily, I was born at at time when we had pretty much abandoned primitive beliefs regarding lefties. By the time I went to school, even the nuns had learned to holster their rulers and not abuse those who tried to write with a naturally dominant left hand. While I'm optimistic that we will as a society become more enlightened with respect to sexuality as well, I'm saddened that so many will have to suffer in the meantime. Constance, I applaud your courage and I wish you all the best. The world owes thanks to all who fight for justice.
Particulars of this case aside, I want to discuss the response from a local pastor, which I suspect is fairly representative. Pastor Bobby Crenshaw of the Southside Baptist Church said that he has seen the South portrayed as "backwards" on websites discussing this matter, but he defended the community, by saying that, "A lot more people here have biblically based values." Even if we give Pastor Crenshaw a break and conveniently forget the biblical dictates not to judge one another and, more importantly, to treat others as you would have them treat you, let's compare the "biblically based values" by which the good people of Itawamba County presumably live to what the school district finds so objectionable. If ham, barbecue pork or a variety of other items were on the menu at the prom, the God-fearin' folk would have no objection, even though the Bible declares that eating such things is an abomination. Of course, gays and lesbians are to be condemned because the Bible also declares their sexuality an abomination. Anyone who ignores biblical condemnation of some things deemed abominable while claiming an obligation to honor other such condemnations that happen to suit them ("Hey, it's not like I want to be a sniveling bigot, but I owe it to my Lord and Savior") is a liar and a fraud. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong that's one thing, but don't tell me you do so because the Bible demands it unless you pay the same respect to other nonsense sprinkled liberally throughout that book.
Finally, I want to examine the sense of moral superiority that those who object to homosexuality seem to harbor. In all likelihood, these people did nothing heroic, moral or even voluntary. They were simply born into the majority. They deserve no kudos for resisting temptation that probably never existed. As a heterosexual I can explain how this works. During the early part of your life you are for all practical purposes asexual. Then one day interacting with the opposite sex goes from something to be avoided at all cost to something you would crawl across broken glass to do. It is as pre-programmed as right or left handedness. And speaking of which, I do happen to be left handed. Luckily, I was born at at time when we had pretty much abandoned primitive beliefs regarding lefties. By the time I went to school, even the nuns had learned to holster their rulers and not abuse those who tried to write with a naturally dominant left hand. While I'm optimistic that we will as a society become more enlightened with respect to sexuality as well, I'm saddened that so many will have to suffer in the meantime. Constance, I applaud your courage and I wish you all the best. The world owes thanks to all who fight for justice.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Unsinkable Scott Brown
If the political pundits are correct that purple is the new black, then Massachusetts is becoming tres chic. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, in political speak, blue states are reliably Democratic, red states are reliably Republican, and purple is, of course, what you get when you have a mix of red and blue. Massachusetts was just about the bluest state in the union, but last night, Scott Brown, a comparatively unknown Republican state senator defeated well known Democratic Attorney General, Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. This latest "Massachusetts Miracle" will doubtlessly be discussed by political junkies and social scientists for years to come, and it may take quite some time to sort out its meaning and implications.
According to some polls, Ms. Coakley had a 31% lead two months ago. Not since the 1978 Red Sox has anyone in Massachusetts blown a lead so big so close to the finish line, and this time no one can curse Bucky F--king Dent. Mr. Brown ran an excellent campaign and Ms. Coakley did not, but that doesn't seem enough to fully explain last night's result. Was it perceived arrogance on the part of Coakley, Obama, or the Washington Democrats? Was it the unpopular health care bill working through Congress, the Tea Party, anti-incumbent fever (Coakley wasn't an incumbent but the seat was controlled by her party), or was Brown just that attractive a candidate? All of the above and likely every combination thereof will be claimed by someone as the right answer, but we'll never really know for sure. Among other things, voters can't always pinpoint exactly what makes them pick A over B. All we can say for sure is that Massachusetts, which seemed destined to send its first woman to the Senate, will instead be sending a Republican to the Senate for the first time since the Nixon landslide of '72.
The bigger question is what does it all mean? If the reason is the health care bill, does it mean reform is dead for now or does it mean that we'll pass different reform? If it's anti-incumbency, are Republican incumbents as vulnerable as Democratic incumbents in November? What if people just prefer Scott Brown? Also, what are the broader implications of now having 41 senators in the Republican caucus? Yes, Obama is losing popularity, but he remains popular in Massachusetts. Yes, the Tea Party fought for Brown and he won a seat held by Democrats for a long time, but in November in the New York 23rd, the Tea Party backed a conservative and they lost a long held Republican seat to a Democrat. I don't know; maybe moderates are sick of both sides trying to pull them to the respective lunatic fringes.
If there's anything I feel safe in saying it's that our recent political history can teach us something. Shortly after the Republican Revolution of 1994, people wrote the epitaph for the Democratic Party as a national force. A few years later, the same was said of the Republicans, asserting that they now represented only the Deep South and Mountain West. After seeing this go back and forth with the speed of Olympic ping-pong, even Americans, notorious for having a short historical memory, will likely hesitate before drawing such sweeping conclusions. Congratulations to Senator Brown and, as one of your constituents, let me thank you in advance for your service to our state and country. May your election usher in a new era of more responsible governing and less of the partisan bickering that has eroded the respect we should have for those who represent us in Congress.
According to some polls, Ms. Coakley had a 31% lead two months ago. Not since the 1978 Red Sox has anyone in Massachusetts blown a lead so big so close to the finish line, and this time no one can curse Bucky F--king Dent. Mr. Brown ran an excellent campaign and Ms. Coakley did not, but that doesn't seem enough to fully explain last night's result. Was it perceived arrogance on the part of Coakley, Obama, or the Washington Democrats? Was it the unpopular health care bill working through Congress, the Tea Party, anti-incumbent fever (Coakley wasn't an incumbent but the seat was controlled by her party), or was Brown just that attractive a candidate? All of the above and likely every combination thereof will be claimed by someone as the right answer, but we'll never really know for sure. Among other things, voters can't always pinpoint exactly what makes them pick A over B. All we can say for sure is that Massachusetts, which seemed destined to send its first woman to the Senate, will instead be sending a Republican to the Senate for the first time since the Nixon landslide of '72.
The bigger question is what does it all mean? If the reason is the health care bill, does it mean reform is dead for now or does it mean that we'll pass different reform? If it's anti-incumbency, are Republican incumbents as vulnerable as Democratic incumbents in November? What if people just prefer Scott Brown? Also, what are the broader implications of now having 41 senators in the Republican caucus? Yes, Obama is losing popularity, but he remains popular in Massachusetts. Yes, the Tea Party fought for Brown and he won a seat held by Democrats for a long time, but in November in the New York 23rd, the Tea Party backed a conservative and they lost a long held Republican seat to a Democrat. I don't know; maybe moderates are sick of both sides trying to pull them to the respective lunatic fringes.
If there's anything I feel safe in saying it's that our recent political history can teach us something. Shortly after the Republican Revolution of 1994, people wrote the epitaph for the Democratic Party as a national force. A few years later, the same was said of the Republicans, asserting that they now represented only the Deep South and Mountain West. After seeing this go back and forth with the speed of Olympic ping-pong, even Americans, notorious for having a short historical memory, will likely hesitate before drawing such sweeping conclusions. Congratulations to Senator Brown and, as one of your constituents, let me thank you in advance for your service to our state and country. May your election usher in a new era of more responsible governing and less of the partisan bickering that has eroded the respect we should have for those who represent us in Congress.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Ugly American
Rewind to September 2001, and you'll see that in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks, our airports are shut down and the world has opened its heart to a battered and shaken nation. Fast forward to January 2010 and the airport in Port-au-Prince, Haiti is shut down because the world has opened its heart to a battered and shaken nation. They simply can't accommodate the enormous outpouring of aid. That hasn't stopped the overwhelming flow of charity as people wait for things to get sorted out so they can help. At times such as these we see humanity at its best. I'm proud that the United States, as it so often does, is taking a lead role in helping the devastated people. Oh how I wish that was all I could see, but the United States is also home to Rush Limbaugh and others like him.
Rush wasted no time in playing to his base of angry, often bigoted, white men and the women who love them. There is a chicken and egg relationship between the rise and subsequent dominance of far right-wing talk radio and the rising perception among angry white men that they were the group most adversely affected by discrimination. I know such a claim sounds as incredible as Shaquille O'Neal fearing that he's too short to go on the good rides at Disneyland, but I swear they really think that! Of course, they have it backwards and the three greatest gifts at birth for outperforming meritocracy are, in descending order, a huge trust fund, a powerfully connected family, and a white penis.
For starters, Rush primed his merry band of snivellers with the old standby - an attack on President Obama and how he's doing this to please black people. He then went on to discourage donations to Haiti by saying we already give to Haiti through our taxes. Rush is a despicable excuse for a human being, but he's not stupid. He knew exactly how those words would be taken by his audience. Allow me to translate from English to Dittohead, "The government already steals your hard earned money just so they can give it to undeserving minorities." Then to top it off, he couldn't resist one more kick to the poor people of Haiti as they lie prostrate on the ground. Here is the link. Check it out for yourselves; I've typed enough of his filth for one day.
Alas, there are others cast in the Limbaugh mold. Listen to Glenn Beck claim that Obama is dividing America by quickly coming to the aid of Haiti. Obama isn't dividing America, Beck and those like him are dividing America by deliberately fanning the flames of fear, anger, frustration, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance. Worst of all, the pretenders and wannabes who stand in the shadows of these elite hate merchants have to be even more outrageous if they want to make their bones and gain wider notoriety. Enter Jim Quinn. This guy doesn't even try to pretend he's not deliberately exploiting white anger and resentment. In his rant on President Obama and Haiti he said, in so many words, that President Obama ignored "Fly-over country white guy America" when it needed help because it wasn't a third world country. Of course, if Obama had offered more aid, Quinn would have likened that federal bailout to Hitler anyway, leaving both host and audience in the enviable position of heads we win; tails you lose. For good measure, he went on to claim that Haiti was poor because it was communist, revealing an ignorance that will likely be lost on his followers.
Finally, there's Pat Robertson's twaddle about a deal with the devil. I almost gave this a pass because I think at this point he's more a doddering fool than an evil man, but I can't manage to let it stand without comment. To say, in essence, "serves you right" to innocent disaster victims who are suffering so deeply is an unconscionable disgrace. Robertson's nonsense may get a rousing amen from his followers who are too gullible and superstitious to understand that this catastrophe has more to do with plate tectonics than an invisible bogeyman in the sky smiting these poor people, but it should disgust anyone who believes in human decency or any prescription for living that Jesus would abide. I find it interesting that being fundamentally unchristian is perhaps the single most salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism. If that doesn't set a new ground speed record for irony, it ought to.
Rush wasted no time in playing to his base of angry, often bigoted, white men and the women who love them. There is a chicken and egg relationship between the rise and subsequent dominance of far right-wing talk radio and the rising perception among angry white men that they were the group most adversely affected by discrimination. I know such a claim sounds as incredible as Shaquille O'Neal fearing that he's too short to go on the good rides at Disneyland, but I swear they really think that! Of course, they have it backwards and the three greatest gifts at birth for outperforming meritocracy are, in descending order, a huge trust fund, a powerfully connected family, and a white penis.
For starters, Rush primed his merry band of snivellers with the old standby - an attack on President Obama and how he's doing this to please black people. He then went on to discourage donations to Haiti by saying we already give to Haiti through our taxes. Rush is a despicable excuse for a human being, but he's not stupid. He knew exactly how those words would be taken by his audience. Allow me to translate from English to Dittohead, "The government already steals your hard earned money just so they can give it to undeserving minorities." Then to top it off, he couldn't resist one more kick to the poor people of Haiti as they lie prostrate on the ground. Here is the link. Check it out for yourselves; I've typed enough of his filth for one day.
Alas, there are others cast in the Limbaugh mold. Listen to Glenn Beck claim that Obama is dividing America by quickly coming to the aid of Haiti. Obama isn't dividing America, Beck and those like him are dividing America by deliberately fanning the flames of fear, anger, frustration, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance. Worst of all, the pretenders and wannabes who stand in the shadows of these elite hate merchants have to be even more outrageous if they want to make their bones and gain wider notoriety. Enter Jim Quinn. This guy doesn't even try to pretend he's not deliberately exploiting white anger and resentment. In his rant on President Obama and Haiti he said, in so many words, that President Obama ignored "Fly-over country white guy America" when it needed help because it wasn't a third world country. Of course, if Obama had offered more aid, Quinn would have likened that federal bailout to Hitler anyway, leaving both host and audience in the enviable position of heads we win; tails you lose. For good measure, he went on to claim that Haiti was poor because it was communist, revealing an ignorance that will likely be lost on his followers.
Finally, there's Pat Robertson's twaddle about a deal with the devil. I almost gave this a pass because I think at this point he's more a doddering fool than an evil man, but I can't manage to let it stand without comment. To say, in essence, "serves you right" to innocent disaster victims who are suffering so deeply is an unconscionable disgrace. Robertson's nonsense may get a rousing amen from his followers who are too gullible and superstitious to understand that this catastrophe has more to do with plate tectonics than an invisible bogeyman in the sky smiting these poor people, but it should disgust anyone who believes in human decency or any prescription for living that Jesus would abide. I find it interesting that being fundamentally unchristian is perhaps the single most salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism. If that doesn't set a new ground speed record for irony, it ought to.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A New Decade and Two Wolves
The '00 decade, or the 0's or the aughts or whatever you want to call the period from 2000-2009 has finally ended to a deafening chorus of "Good Riddance!" For the United States it was a decade of loss. We lost money, we lost jobs, and most of all, we lost our way. In terms of material wealth, American prosperity took a beating. Here's a sobering illustration of my point. If you had taken your life savings as of December 31, 1999 and stuffed it in a mattress, content to earn a return of 0.00% over 10 years, you would be 35% richer than if you divided your wealth into equal thirds and invested each third broadly across the stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, and S&P 500.
This was bound to happen sooner or later as the American dream gave way to the American pipe dream. We lost touch with reality, and our delusion led to an inevitable fall. We replaced our parents' and grandparents' dreams of owning their own homes in order to build a better life with our own avaricious fantasies of buying homes in the expectation of selling them for obscene profits and borrowing against this windfall in the interim. Likewise, we viewed the stock market as a casino that would make us filthy rich without the bother of contributing something of value to the world. Now with the financial and housing markets only averting collapse through extraordinary government intervention that has mortgaged our future, we have fallen back to reality with a sickening thud. We knew all along that risk and reward were directly correlated, i.e. low rates of return involve low risk and high rates of return involve high risk, but our misplaced sense of invincibility allowed us to ignore the forces of gravity that would surely have their day.
The last decade also saw our peace of mind and sense of security shattered as a routine Tuesday morning in September 2001 became a living nightmare few dared to even imagine. Never again could we see ourselves as invulnerable to the barbarity we once thought only happened in other countries. As if the carnage weren't bad enough, we compounded the tragedy of that day by quickly squandering the sense of national unity and common purpose within our country and the communion we shared across the world. On top of everything else, we have lost faith in all of our institutions. We don't trust the government, corporations, church leaders, mega church leaders, the media, or each other. Even baseball, which once served as a refuge from the scandals of the day has been infected with wholesale cheating.
We have struggled before, but this time the voices or reason are being drowned out by the shrill voices of hate and division for which we have developed an insatiable appetite. All too often, the notion of two sides merely disagreeing is vanishing in favor of the perception that the world is divided into those who agree with us are right and those who are evil and must be defeated. With the advent of the new decade, we should resolve to make a desperately needed course correction and stop the madness. Like a coach with a gift for making halftime adjustments, our greatest asset as a nation may be our ability to correct problems and make improvements. Notwithstanding the gloom of the preceding paragraphs, I have confidence in our future, but we need to make changes now. To illustrate the choices before us, let me leave you with an old Cherokee parable:
The old chief was teaching his grandson about life. He told the boy, "A terrible fight is going on inside of me and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego. The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith. This same fight is going on inside you and inside every other person too." The boy thought for a moment then asked his grandfather which wolf will win. The chief replied, "Whichever one you feed."
This was bound to happen sooner or later as the American dream gave way to the American pipe dream. We lost touch with reality, and our delusion led to an inevitable fall. We replaced our parents' and grandparents' dreams of owning their own homes in order to build a better life with our own avaricious fantasies of buying homes in the expectation of selling them for obscene profits and borrowing against this windfall in the interim. Likewise, we viewed the stock market as a casino that would make us filthy rich without the bother of contributing something of value to the world. Now with the financial and housing markets only averting collapse through extraordinary government intervention that has mortgaged our future, we have fallen back to reality with a sickening thud. We knew all along that risk and reward were directly correlated, i.e. low rates of return involve low risk and high rates of return involve high risk, but our misplaced sense of invincibility allowed us to ignore the forces of gravity that would surely have their day.
The last decade also saw our peace of mind and sense of security shattered as a routine Tuesday morning in September 2001 became a living nightmare few dared to even imagine. Never again could we see ourselves as invulnerable to the barbarity we once thought only happened in other countries. As if the carnage weren't bad enough, we compounded the tragedy of that day by quickly squandering the sense of national unity and common purpose within our country and the communion we shared across the world. On top of everything else, we have lost faith in all of our institutions. We don't trust the government, corporations, church leaders, mega church leaders, the media, or each other. Even baseball, which once served as a refuge from the scandals of the day has been infected with wholesale cheating.
We have struggled before, but this time the voices or reason are being drowned out by the shrill voices of hate and division for which we have developed an insatiable appetite. All too often, the notion of two sides merely disagreeing is vanishing in favor of the perception that the world is divided into those who agree with us are right and those who are evil and must be defeated. With the advent of the new decade, we should resolve to make a desperately needed course correction and stop the madness. Like a coach with a gift for making halftime adjustments, our greatest asset as a nation may be our ability to correct problems and make improvements. Notwithstanding the gloom of the preceding paragraphs, I have confidence in our future, but we need to make changes now. To illustrate the choices before us, let me leave you with an old Cherokee parable:
The old chief was teaching his grandson about life. He told the boy, "A terrible fight is going on inside of me and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego. The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith. This same fight is going on inside you and inside every other person too." The boy thought for a moment then asked his grandfather which wolf will win. The chief replied, "Whichever one you feed."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)