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.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)