Every election year the Republicans dust off Roe v. Wade and beat Democrats over the head with it, calling us “baby killers” (or worse). Although I’ve written on this subject before, because we’re in another election campaign, I think it’s worthwhile to revisit it. My purpose here isn’t to take either a “pro-life” or a “pro-choice” position; rather it’s to call attention to yet another example of Republican hypocrisy.
WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? From 1970 continuously to the present day, Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents have constituted a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1973, the year in which Roe v. Wade was decided, the Court consisted of SIX Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William H. Rehnquist) and three Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (William O. Douglas, Byron R. White and Thurgood Marshall).
The majority decision in Roe v. Wade was written by Justice Blackmun, an appointee of REPUBLICAN President Nixon. He was joined in his decision by FOUR other REPUBLICAN appointees: Chief Justice Burger (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Nixon; Justice Stewart (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Eisenhower; Justice Brennan, an appointee of President Eisenhower; and Justice Powell, an appointee of President Nixon.
To summarize, of the six REPUBLICAN appointees on the Court, FIVE voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade. Only ONE REPUBLICAN appointee, Justice Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon, DISSENTED from the decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
Of the three Democratic appointees, two joined the majority: Justice Douglas (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Roosevelt; and Justice Marshall, an appointee of President Johnson. One Democratic appointee, Justice White, an appointee of President Kennedy, dissented from the Court’s decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
So, WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? They were FIVE Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun and Powell) and two Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (Douglas and Marshall).
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Growing up
I’m old enough to remember the 1960 Republican National Convention, when Senator Barry Goldwater’s supporters were angry and disappointed because the convention had chosen Vice President Richard Nixon to be the GOP standard bearer. Goldwater, in that raspy voice and plain-speaking manner, urged his supporters to get over it: “Grow up, Republicans!”
Eight years later, in 1968, the Democrats were fractured, apparently beyond repair. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was dead, the victim of an assassin’s bullet, and the Democratic National Convention was in the process of choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey. (Most of the primary elections that year were won by either Kennedy or Senator Eugene McCarthy, whom I supported.)
I was outraged as I watched the convention on television. I was outraged at Chicago’s “finest” clubbing and tear-gassing Americans who were exercising their right of free speech in the streets of the Windy City. I was outraged at Vice President Humphrey, who had gone from the hero of the 1948 convention--the young mayor of Minneapolis pushed for and won adoption of a strong civil rights plank in the party platform that year--to the villain of the 1968 convention: In 20 years he had regressed from a progressive to a supporter of Lyndon Johnson’s unpopular war.
But, I remembered Barry Goldwater’s rebuke to his followers eight years earlier: I supported and voted for Hubert Humphrey in November 1968.
Now, it’s 2008, and many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton are saying that they plan either to “sit this one out” or--God forbid--to vote for Senator John McCain. As I type these words, the 2008 Democratic National Convention is only beginning, but I’m confident that both Senator Clinton and her husband will be as forceful with her supporters as was Senator Goldwater with his in 1960.
Clinton supporters: Do you understand that, unlike 1968, the positions of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the major issues are virtually indistinguishable? If large numbers of you Clinton supporters don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, and if the Democrats don’t win the White House, it won’t be you whom the historians write about. The historians will blame Senator Clinton (and her husband) for the loss. If you don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, you’ll be tarnishing the legacy of the very person whom you claim to support.
Grow up, Democrats!
Eight years later, in 1968, the Democrats were fractured, apparently beyond repair. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was dead, the victim of an assassin’s bullet, and the Democratic National Convention was in the process of choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey. (Most of the primary elections that year were won by either Kennedy or Senator Eugene McCarthy, whom I supported.)
I was outraged as I watched the convention on television. I was outraged at Chicago’s “finest” clubbing and tear-gassing Americans who were exercising their right of free speech in the streets of the Windy City. I was outraged at Vice President Humphrey, who had gone from the hero of the 1948 convention--the young mayor of Minneapolis pushed for and won adoption of a strong civil rights plank in the party platform that year--to the villain of the 1968 convention: In 20 years he had regressed from a progressive to a supporter of Lyndon Johnson’s unpopular war.
But, I remembered Barry Goldwater’s rebuke to his followers eight years earlier: I supported and voted for Hubert Humphrey in November 1968.
Now, it’s 2008, and many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton are saying that they plan either to “sit this one out” or--God forbid--to vote for Senator John McCain. As I type these words, the 2008 Democratic National Convention is only beginning, but I’m confident that both Senator Clinton and her husband will be as forceful with her supporters as was Senator Goldwater with his in 1960.
Clinton supporters: Do you understand that, unlike 1968, the positions of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the major issues are virtually indistinguishable? If large numbers of you Clinton supporters don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, and if the Democrats don’t win the White House, it won’t be you whom the historians write about. The historians will blame Senator Clinton (and her husband) for the loss. If you don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, you’ll be tarnishing the legacy of the very person whom you claim to support.
Grow up, Democrats!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Evil
This one is for you Christians out there.
When presumptive presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama participated in a forum August 16th hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, perhaps the most revealing questions and answers concerned “evil.”
When asked about evil in the world, Senator McCain said that it should be defeated. Senator Obama said that it is God’s job to defeat evil but that we could be soldiers in that fight.
Because this was a “Christian” forum, it’s instructive to read what Christian Scripture says about what we should do about evil in the world:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. (Romans 12:17.)
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. (Romans 12:21.)
Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult. (1 Peter 3:9.)
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. (3 John 1:11.)
I think that what Saints Paul, Peter and John are all saying to us is that, if we have to resort to evil deeds to combat evil, then we have ourselves become evil. In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Senator McCain’s hell-for-leather approach demonstrates his unfamiliarity with Scripture. What he proposes may or may not be good foreign policy, but it’s very bad religion. Senator Obama’s attempt to balance what he as a Christian believes with the practical problem of defending our beloved country shows his superior knowledge and understanding of Scripture.
That the so-called Christians in the live audience liked Senator McCain’s answer to “evil” better than they did Senator Obama's illustrates that they, like Senator McCain, must be ignorant of what Scripture says about dealing with evil.
Senator McCain talks a lot about “Judeo-Christian” values. Maybe he should spend some time learning about them.
When presumptive presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama participated in a forum August 16th hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, perhaps the most revealing questions and answers concerned “evil.”
When asked about evil in the world, Senator McCain said that it should be defeated. Senator Obama said that it is God’s job to defeat evil but that we could be soldiers in that fight.
Because this was a “Christian” forum, it’s instructive to read what Christian Scripture says about what we should do about evil in the world:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. (Romans 12:17.)
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. (Romans 12:21.)
Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult. (1 Peter 3:9.)
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. (3 John 1:11.)
I think that what Saints Paul, Peter and John are all saying to us is that, if we have to resort to evil deeds to combat evil, then we have ourselves become evil. In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Senator McCain’s hell-for-leather approach demonstrates his unfamiliarity with Scripture. What he proposes may or may not be good foreign policy, but it’s very bad religion. Senator Obama’s attempt to balance what he as a Christian believes with the practical problem of defending our beloved country shows his superior knowledge and understanding of Scripture.
That the so-called Christians in the live audience liked Senator McCain’s answer to “evil” better than they did Senator Obama's illustrates that they, like Senator McCain, must be ignorant of what Scripture says about dealing with evil.
Senator McCain talks a lot about “Judeo-Christian” values. Maybe he should spend some time learning about them.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Unrepentant
Rumor has it that President George W. Bush will join former British Prime Minister Tony Blair by converting to Catholicism upon leaving office next January. When an adult baptized Christian of another denomination joins the Catholic Church, he or she must confess his or her serious sins to a priest (Sacrament of Penance/Rite of Reconciliation) before being confirmed and then receiving Holy Communion as a Catholic for the first time. Here is how I imagine Bush’s first experience with confession:
Priest: Mr. President.
Bush: Hiya, Father.
Priest: Mr. President, what would you like to talk about today?
Bush: Gee, I don’t know.
Priest: What I mean, Mr. President, is have you thought about the sins that you have committed in your life?
Bush: Father, offhand, I can’t think of anything that I’ve done wrong.
Priest: O.K., Mr. President, let’s try this. I’ll share some of the basic teachings of the Church with you, and you tell me whether you have violated them.
Bush: Sounds fair to me.
Priest: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, unequivocally condemns torture: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Mr. President, have you ever employed or condoned torture?
Bush (laughing): Well, I’ve tortured the English language on a number of occasions.
Priest: I see. Uh, let’s try something else. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II declared that the action did not constitute a “just war.” Would you now like to reconsider your decision to invade Iraq?
Bush: Maybe it wasn’t a just war, but, come on, it was just a war. A just war; just a war; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest (rolling his eyes): Let’s move on, Mr. President. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 501, reads as follows: “Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.” Mr. President, did you preside over a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent?
Bush: Wow, juridical. That’s a fancy word. What does it mean?
Priest: Legal.
Bush: Hey, what are you, a Democrat?
Priest (sighing): Mr. President, I’m going to grant you absolution now.
Bush: Absolution? Absolutely! Absolution; absolutely; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest: God help us!
Priest: Mr. President.
Bush: Hiya, Father.
Priest: Mr. President, what would you like to talk about today?
Bush: Gee, I don’t know.
Priest: What I mean, Mr. President, is have you thought about the sins that you have committed in your life?
Bush: Father, offhand, I can’t think of anything that I’ve done wrong.
Priest: O.K., Mr. President, let’s try this. I’ll share some of the basic teachings of the Church with you, and you tell me whether you have violated them.
Bush: Sounds fair to me.
Priest: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, unequivocally condemns torture: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Mr. President, have you ever employed or condoned torture?
Bush (laughing): Well, I’ve tortured the English language on a number of occasions.
Priest: I see. Uh, let’s try something else. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II declared that the action did not constitute a “just war.” Would you now like to reconsider your decision to invade Iraq?
Bush: Maybe it wasn’t a just war, but, come on, it was just a war. A just war; just a war; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest (rolling his eyes): Let’s move on, Mr. President. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 501, reads as follows: “Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.” Mr. President, did you preside over a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent?
Bush: Wow, juridical. That’s a fancy word. What does it mean?
Priest: Legal.
Bush: Hey, what are you, a Democrat?
Priest (sighing): Mr. President, I’m going to grant you absolution now.
Bush: Absolution? Absolutely! Absolution; absolutely; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest: God help us!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Old Ben
In Poor Richard, 1738, Benjamin Franklin wrote this maxim:
“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” (Emphasis mine.)
A rewording of this maxim was used as the motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, published by Franklin in 1759:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Franklin is perhaps the most famous of our Founding Fathers, so much so that some historians have gone so far as to assert that he “invented” the idea of the United States of America. The U.S. House of Representatives held a memorial service, April 22d, 1790, five days after Franklin’s death, at which Virginia Representative (and future President) James Madison rose to deliver the final tribute. Madison characterized the “various exertions” of Franklin’s “native genius” as having been “precious to science, to freedom, and to his country.”
Five of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heeded Franklin’s words June 12th, 2008, when they issued the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, recognizing habeas corpus rights for prisoners held at Guantánamo. Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer correctly reasoned that a desire for temporary safety (“security”) does not justify ignoring the essential liberties guaranteed by both the Common Law and the clear and unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution.
Old Ben would be pleased that the principles upon which this country were founded have been upheld by the Court. He knew that infringement on the rights of any person eventually leads to the destruction of rights for all. That was true in 1738, and it’s true today.
“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” (Emphasis mine.)
A rewording of this maxim was used as the motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, published by Franklin in 1759:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Franklin is perhaps the most famous of our Founding Fathers, so much so that some historians have gone so far as to assert that he “invented” the idea of the United States of America. The U.S. House of Representatives held a memorial service, April 22d, 1790, five days after Franklin’s death, at which Virginia Representative (and future President) James Madison rose to deliver the final tribute. Madison characterized the “various exertions” of Franklin’s “native genius” as having been “precious to science, to freedom, and to his country.”
Five of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heeded Franklin’s words June 12th, 2008, when they issued the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, recognizing habeas corpus rights for prisoners held at Guantánamo. Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer correctly reasoned that a desire for temporary safety (“security”) does not justify ignoring the essential liberties guaranteed by both the Common Law and the clear and unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution.
Old Ben would be pleased that the principles upon which this country were founded have been upheld by the Court. He knew that infringement on the rights of any person eventually leads to the destruction of rights for all. That was true in 1738, and it’s true today.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Bull in the china shop?
The presumptive Republican nominee for President, Senator John McCain, recently made this comment at a town hall meeting in Denver: “My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
Clarifying, the Arizona Republican said that he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict: “The Congressional Record is very clear; I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.”
I’ll take the Senator at his word. He probably does believe that we invaded Iraq “because of weapons of mass destruction.” However, nobody seems to have asked him the follow-up question, which is, “If we invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, and they had none, then that means that the invasion was a mistake, so why are we still there?” Americans continue to be wounded and die for something that was a mistake, and Senator McCain wants us to see it through to “victory”? Victory over what? Non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
Now, I must admit that, although I’ve opposed this military adventure from its beginning, I'd begun to think that we couldn’t withdraw precipitously, that we have an obligation to rebuild a country that’s been destroyed because of our leaders’ mistaken belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I did, that is, until my fuzzy thinking was jolted a few days ago when I read something written about the Iraq War by Robert Waldrop, of the Archbishop Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House, Oklahoma City, at http://www.justpeace.org/:
“The people of Iraq are fully qualified to rebuild their nation. They do not need the merciless American government to ‘help.’ People are fond of saying these days that ‘we broke it, we have to fix it now.’ Actually, a better analogy would be the bull who wrecks the china shop. To clean up the situation, to make it better, first the bull must be removed from the shop.”
I was wrong, and Senator McCain is even more wrong. Robert Waldrop is right: We are the bull in the china shop.
Clarifying, the Arizona Republican said that he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict: “The Congressional Record is very clear; I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.”
I’ll take the Senator at his word. He probably does believe that we invaded Iraq “because of weapons of mass destruction.” However, nobody seems to have asked him the follow-up question, which is, “If we invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, and they had none, then that means that the invasion was a mistake, so why are we still there?” Americans continue to be wounded and die for something that was a mistake, and Senator McCain wants us to see it through to “victory”? Victory over what? Non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
Now, I must admit that, although I’ve opposed this military adventure from its beginning, I'd begun to think that we couldn’t withdraw precipitously, that we have an obligation to rebuild a country that’s been destroyed because of our leaders’ mistaken belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I did, that is, until my fuzzy thinking was jolted a few days ago when I read something written about the Iraq War by Robert Waldrop, of the Archbishop Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House, Oklahoma City, at http://www.justpeace.org/:
“The people of Iraq are fully qualified to rebuild their nation. They do not need the merciless American government to ‘help.’ People are fond of saying these days that ‘we broke it, we have to fix it now.’ Actually, a better analogy would be the bull who wrecks the china shop. To clean up the situation, to make it better, first the bull must be removed from the shop.”
I was wrong, and Senator McCain is even more wrong. Robert Waldrop is right: We are the bull in the china shop.
Snake oil?
President-wannabe John McCain’s “solution” to the escalating price of health care is to give each family a tax credit of $5,000. The Republican Senator argues that families could then use that $5,000 to “shop around in the free market” for lower-priced health care insurance, thereby giving families “control” over their own health care.
Using the 2007 federal income tax rates (10 percent of the amount from $1 to $15,650 and 15 percent of the amount from $15,651 to $63,700), a family’s adjusted gross income (AGI) would have to be $38,550 or more for them to have a total federal income tax liability of at least $5,000: 0.10 x $15,650 + 0.15 x $22,900 = $5,000. Let’s consider a family of four (mom, pop and two children). This family would claim four exemptions at $3,400 each, and, assuming a filing status of married, filing jointly, their standard deduction would be $10,700. Their gross income would be $38,550 + 4 x $3,400 + $10,700 = $62,850.
Therefore, any family of four with an annual gross income of less than $62,850 would get a McCain tax credit of less than $5,000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income for a family of four in West Virginia is about $55,920, which means that more than half the families of four in West Virginia would receive a tax credit of less than $5,000 under Senator McCain’s proposal.
The average annual premium for family health care coverage is a little more than $12,000. Senator McCain wants to give less than half the families of four in West Virginia $5,000 with which to “shop around.” To the majority of families of four (probably the very families who are either uninsured or underinsured), he’d give even less than $5,000. Does anybody really believe that he or she could purchase suitable family health insurance with that?
Remember in November!
Using the 2007 federal income tax rates (10 percent of the amount from $1 to $15,650 and 15 percent of the amount from $15,651 to $63,700), a family’s adjusted gross income (AGI) would have to be $38,550 or more for them to have a total federal income tax liability of at least $5,000: 0.10 x $15,650 + 0.15 x $22,900 = $5,000. Let’s consider a family of four (mom, pop and two children). This family would claim four exemptions at $3,400 each, and, assuming a filing status of married, filing jointly, their standard deduction would be $10,700. Their gross income would be $38,550 + 4 x $3,400 + $10,700 = $62,850.
Therefore, any family of four with an annual gross income of less than $62,850 would get a McCain tax credit of less than $5,000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income for a family of four in West Virginia is about $55,920, which means that more than half the families of four in West Virginia would receive a tax credit of less than $5,000 under Senator McCain’s proposal.
The average annual premium for family health care coverage is a little more than $12,000. Senator McCain wants to give less than half the families of four in West Virginia $5,000 with which to “shop around.” To the majority of families of four (probably the very families who are either uninsured or underinsured), he’d give even less than $5,000. Does anybody really believe that he or she could purchase suitable family health insurance with that?
Remember in November!
Monday, April 14, 2008
The truth hurts
Many Americans believe that truth is in short supply among public officials. How many times have you heard somebody say, “They’re all liars,” or, “I wish we had a straight-talking politician”? What’s interesting is that we now have a politician who “tells it like it is,” and he’s being criticized for his truthfulness.
About a week ago at a gathering in San Francisco, Sen. Barack Obama displayed some of that yearned-for straight talk when he described the bitterness of small-town American voters: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter; they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Sen. Obama’s comments are right on point. As working-class Americans see their jobs--indeed, their very lives--going down the drain, it’s understandable that in many instances they turn inward. Instead of voting in their best economic interests, they, in their justifiable anger, turn to fear-mongering candidates, demagogues who offer attractive, simplistic (but wrong) “solutions” that blame minorities, immigrants and persons of other (or no) faith traditions for their economic woes.
Because he confronted a problem, used his brain to analyze it, and then told the truth about it, Sen. Obama is being attacked as an “elitist.” These attacks exemplify America’s alarming love affair with mediocrity, a widespread attitude that glorifies dumb and vilifies smart. How else can one explain the election to the presidency, not once, but twice, of a semi-literate simpleton like George W. Bush?
About a week ago at a gathering in San Francisco, Sen. Barack Obama displayed some of that yearned-for straight talk when he described the bitterness of small-town American voters: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter; they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Sen. Obama’s comments are right on point. As working-class Americans see their jobs--indeed, their very lives--going down the drain, it’s understandable that in many instances they turn inward. Instead of voting in their best economic interests, they, in their justifiable anger, turn to fear-mongering candidates, demagogues who offer attractive, simplistic (but wrong) “solutions” that blame minorities, immigrants and persons of other (or no) faith traditions for their economic woes.
Because he confronted a problem, used his brain to analyze it, and then told the truth about it, Sen. Obama is being attacked as an “elitist.” These attacks exemplify America’s alarming love affair with mediocrity, a widespread attitude that glorifies dumb and vilifies smart. How else can one explain the election to the presidency, not once, but twice, of a semi-literate simpleton like George W. Bush?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Black Power?
Almost two weeks ago I was so stunned by a remark as to be speechless, a state that is quite rare for me. Somebody asked me whom I plan to vote for in the May 13th West Virginia Presidential Primary, to which I responded, "Senator Obama." His face clouded as he told me that he couldn’t vote for the Illinois Senator because "[t]he Blacks have too much power in this country." Too much power? Are you kidding me?
Did he mean political power? No African American has ever been President. Only five African Americans (including Senator Obama) have served in the U.S. Senate. Only two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have been African Americans. Only four African Americans have served as Governors of States. That’s not exactly political power.
Did he mean financial power? In 2001 (the year for which I have the latest figures), the median net worth of a European American ("white") family was $117,722; of an African American family, $18,510. The average stock ownership of a European American family was $50,530; of an African American family, $3,155. I doubt that one could say that African Americans have a stranglehold on the finances of this country.
You understand, of course, that, if I had told him that I plan to vote for Senator Clinton (which I will do in November if she’s the Democratic nominee), his response probably would have been that women have too much power in this country. I suspect that he longs for the "good old days" in West Virginia before African Americans and women achieved all that "power." Ah, yes, those were the days. In West Virginia, African Americans were denied access to restaurants and hotels; African American children attended segregated schools; women were prohibited from serving on juries.
Damnant quod non intelligunt. (They condemn what they do not understand.)
Did he mean political power? No African American has ever been President. Only five African Americans (including Senator Obama) have served in the U.S. Senate. Only two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have been African Americans. Only four African Americans have served as Governors of States. That’s not exactly political power.
Did he mean financial power? In 2001 (the year for which I have the latest figures), the median net worth of a European American ("white") family was $117,722; of an African American family, $18,510. The average stock ownership of a European American family was $50,530; of an African American family, $3,155. I doubt that one could say that African Americans have a stranglehold on the finances of this country.
You understand, of course, that, if I had told him that I plan to vote for Senator Clinton (which I will do in November if she’s the Democratic nominee), his response probably would have been that women have too much power in this country. I suspect that he longs for the "good old days" in West Virginia before African Americans and women achieved all that "power." Ah, yes, those were the days. In West Virginia, African Americans were denied access to restaurants and hotels; African American children attended segregated schools; women were prohibited from serving on juries.
Damnant quod non intelligunt. (They condemn what they do not understand.)
Friday, March 7, 2008
Hillary
I never liked Bill Clinton as a President. I considered him a “Republicrat,” that is, a Republican cleverly disguised as a Democrat. That disguise was stripped from him for all to see when he pardoned union-busting Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice, shortly before he left office. Hillary? I’ve always believed that she’s even more conservative than Bill; after all, she was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College and a “Goldwater Girl.” However, I understand that people can change, so, when it became apparent a couple of years ago that she would run for President, I began defending her against what I considered to be the irrational “Hillary haters.” Now, I simply can’t defend any longer a candidate whose insatiable thirst for power has led her to indefensible personal attacks on Sen. Obama, attacks that are damaging to the Democratic Party. It’s clear to me now that she prefers destruction of the Party’s chances for victory in November to the nomination of Sen. Obama.
Franklin Roosevelt told us that “[t]he only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.” On the other hand, the Republicans thrive on scaring the hell out of us and keeping us scared. The “Unholy Trinity” of Bush, Cheney and Rove have taken this strategy to an extreme by milking 9/11 for all that it’s worth. Fear-mongering is a Republican way of life: “They are coming to get us, so elect us to protect you.” (Then, of course, instead of protecting us by hunting down and bringing to justice those who really did “come to get us” on 9/11, the Republicans invade countries like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11; whom will Bush invade next? Liechtenstein?)
Hillary’s campaign ad in which she asks whom we want to answer the phone at 3 a.m. plays on those same fears, a Republican tactic worthy of Bush, Cheney and Rove, far removed from Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s soothing our fears. Like Republicans Bush, Cheney and Rove, Hillary is trying to scare us into voting for her. She’ll “protect” us because, according to her, she’s ready to serve “from day one,” whereas Sen. Obama would be, as she said in a March 4th, Columbus, Ohio, speech, an “on-the-job trainee.” One Democrat referring to another as an on-the-job trainee? That’s a disgrace! Ready to serve “from day one”? She’s a U.S. Senator, as is Barack Obama, so what’s this “experience” that she keeps talking about? Presumably, she’s referring to her being married to, having lived in the White House with, and having traveled to foreign countries with her husband, the President. Using that logic, Laura Bush would also be ready to serve “from day one” should she run for and be elected President!
If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, will I vote for her in November? Would I prefer that Sen. Obama be the nominee? An unenthusiastic “yes” to the former--I’m too patriotic to vote for a Republican after the mess they’ve made of our beloved America--and an enthusiastic “yes” to the latter.
Franklin Roosevelt told us that “[t]he only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.” On the other hand, the Republicans thrive on scaring the hell out of us and keeping us scared. The “Unholy Trinity” of Bush, Cheney and Rove have taken this strategy to an extreme by milking 9/11 for all that it’s worth. Fear-mongering is a Republican way of life: “They are coming to get us, so elect us to protect you.” (Then, of course, instead of protecting us by hunting down and bringing to justice those who really did “come to get us” on 9/11, the Republicans invade countries like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11; whom will Bush invade next? Liechtenstein?)
Hillary’s campaign ad in which she asks whom we want to answer the phone at 3 a.m. plays on those same fears, a Republican tactic worthy of Bush, Cheney and Rove, far removed from Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s soothing our fears. Like Republicans Bush, Cheney and Rove, Hillary is trying to scare us into voting for her. She’ll “protect” us because, according to her, she’s ready to serve “from day one,” whereas Sen. Obama would be, as she said in a March 4th, Columbus, Ohio, speech, an “on-the-job trainee.” One Democrat referring to another as an on-the-job trainee? That’s a disgrace! Ready to serve “from day one”? She’s a U.S. Senator, as is Barack Obama, so what’s this “experience” that she keeps talking about? Presumably, she’s referring to her being married to, having lived in the White House with, and having traveled to foreign countries with her husband, the President. Using that logic, Laura Bush would also be ready to serve “from day one” should she run for and be elected President!
If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, will I vote for her in November? Would I prefer that Sen. Obama be the nominee? An unenthusiastic “yes” to the former--I’m too patriotic to vote for a Republican after the mess they’ve made of our beloved America--and an enthusiastic “yes” to the latter.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Strict construction?
In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, was asked the following question:
“A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?”
The Senator responded as follows:
“I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”
This Sen. McCain is the same candidate who has promised that, if elected, he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Strict construction,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “recognizes nothing that is not expressed.” Can anybody out there point out to me where in the U.S. Constitution it is written that we were established as a Christian nation? I’ve looked and looked, but I can’t find it. A strict constructionist judge couldn’t find it either because it's not there.
What is obviously disturbing about Sen. McCain’s answer is that he either (1) hasn’t read the Constitution (like 55 percent of Americans?) or (2) knows better but is playing up to the Religious Right to win their votes in November. Either way, I don’t want him as President.
Frankly, as a Christian, I’m offended that 55 percent of Americans, including Sen. McCain, think that Christianity is so weak that it needs constitutional establishment. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1780, “When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
“A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?”
The Senator responded as follows:
“I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”
This Sen. McCain is the same candidate who has promised that, if elected, he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Strict construction,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “recognizes nothing that is not expressed.” Can anybody out there point out to me where in the U.S. Constitution it is written that we were established as a Christian nation? I’ve looked and looked, but I can’t find it. A strict constructionist judge couldn’t find it either because it's not there.
What is obviously disturbing about Sen. McCain’s answer is that he either (1) hasn’t read the Constitution (like 55 percent of Americans?) or (2) knows better but is playing up to the Religious Right to win their votes in November. Either way, I don’t want him as President.
Frankly, as a Christian, I’m offended that 55 percent of Americans, including Sen. McCain, think that Christianity is so weak that it needs constitutional establishment. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1780, “When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
McGraw
Surely you’ve heard this comment: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” Or, maybe it was phrased like this: “There’s only one political party in this country, the Money Party, and it has two branches, the Democratic branch and the Republican branch.” If you labor under the illusion that there’s little or no difference between the two major political parties, come to West Virginia, and we’ll enlighten you.
The Attorney General of West Virginia, Democrat Darrell McGraw, is seeking a fifth term this year, having been elected in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Two Republicans, including Hiram Lewis, who was defeated by McGraw in the 2004 General Election, are also running for Attorney General this year.
I heard Hiram Lewis on the radio today, ranting about how “bad for business” Darrell McGraw is. Lewis pointed out that McGraw sues companies that sell defective merchandise, rip off consumers and take other harmful actions. Can you imagine that? McGraw actually believes that he should defend the citizens of our state against fraud!
Lewis, however, says that he’ll emphasize “crime prevention.” Presumably, Lewis would have us believe that criminal activity by corporations is not really crime, that stopping unscrupulous businesses from cheating hard-working, law-abiding West Virginians is “bad for business.”
No difference between Democrats and Republicans? I don’t think so! Democrats believe in the words of the Preamble to the West Virginia Constitution, which inspire us to “seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare….” Republicans (or at least Republicans like Hiram Lewis) apparently believe that protecting the common welfare of our citizens is “bad for business.”
For his whole adult life, Attorney General Darrell McGraw has stood up against those who, for almost 145 years, have been cheating us; polluting our air, land and water; and stealing from us. He’s not “bad for business”; he’s bad for cheaters, polluters and thieves. Count me on the side of McGraw and against the cheaters, polluters and thieves.
The Attorney General of West Virginia, Democrat Darrell McGraw, is seeking a fifth term this year, having been elected in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Two Republicans, including Hiram Lewis, who was defeated by McGraw in the 2004 General Election, are also running for Attorney General this year.
I heard Hiram Lewis on the radio today, ranting about how “bad for business” Darrell McGraw is. Lewis pointed out that McGraw sues companies that sell defective merchandise, rip off consumers and take other harmful actions. Can you imagine that? McGraw actually believes that he should defend the citizens of our state against fraud!
Lewis, however, says that he’ll emphasize “crime prevention.” Presumably, Lewis would have us believe that criminal activity by corporations is not really crime, that stopping unscrupulous businesses from cheating hard-working, law-abiding West Virginians is “bad for business.”
No difference between Democrats and Republicans? I don’t think so! Democrats believe in the words of the Preamble to the West Virginia Constitution, which inspire us to “seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare….” Republicans (or at least Republicans like Hiram Lewis) apparently believe that protecting the common welfare of our citizens is “bad for business.”
For his whole adult life, Attorney General Darrell McGraw has stood up against those who, for almost 145 years, have been cheating us; polluting our air, land and water; and stealing from us. He’s not “bad for business”; he’s bad for cheaters, polluters and thieves. Count me on the side of McGraw and against the cheaters, polluters and thieves.
Friday, February 1, 2008
A victory for democracy
The word filtering out of California is that the leaders of the California Teachers Association (CTA), the 295,000-member affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA), were stymied January 26th in their attempt to endorse presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton before the upcoming “Super Tuesday” primary election, February 5th.
January 24th, the CTA Endorsement Committee voted unanimously to recommend the endorsement of the New York Senator, but, when the committee presented its recommendation to the CTA State Council two days later, the 800-member council voted to postpone any presidential endorsement until April.
Theories abound concerning exactly what took place. Some say that the CTA leaders are out of touch with the rank and file members, many of whom favor Sen. Barack Obama for President. Some say that the council members from Los Angeles blocked the endorsement in retaliation for the CTA’s action of January 19th in preventing an endorsement of Sen. Obama by the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), the CTA’s largest and most powerful local affiliate.
That the short-term winner is Sen. Obama, and the short-term loser is Sen. Clinton is obvious because the latter does not have the CTA endorsement going into “Super Tuesday.” However, the long-term winner is representative democracy. The people--in this situation, the people are the CTA members--have spoken. Whether you are for Sen. Clinton or for Sen. Obama, you have to agree that that is a good thing.
January 24th, the CTA Endorsement Committee voted unanimously to recommend the endorsement of the New York Senator, but, when the committee presented its recommendation to the CTA State Council two days later, the 800-member council voted to postpone any presidential endorsement until April.
Theories abound concerning exactly what took place. Some say that the CTA leaders are out of touch with the rank and file members, many of whom favor Sen. Barack Obama for President. Some say that the council members from Los Angeles blocked the endorsement in retaliation for the CTA’s action of January 19th in preventing an endorsement of Sen. Obama by the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), the CTA’s largest and most powerful local affiliate.
That the short-term winner is Sen. Obama, and the short-term loser is Sen. Clinton is obvious because the latter does not have the CTA endorsement going into “Super Tuesday.” However, the long-term winner is representative democracy. The people--in this situation, the people are the CTA members--have spoken. Whether you are for Sen. Clinton or for Sen. Obama, you have to agree that that is a good thing.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama
Am I the only one who receives e-mails from the haters of Sen. Barack Obama, or are you getting them too? I like the man and think he’d be a good President, but that’s not the point. If somebody disagrees with my assessment of the senator, that’s fine; it’s his or her right to do so. My problem is that the e-mail bombardment has nothing to do with Sen. Obama’s positions on issues; it’s all personal and probably untrue. Furthermore, even if most of what’s contained in the e-mails were true, it wouldn’t negatively affect his fitness to be President. Let’s analyze some of the things being said about him.
First, Sen. Obama is a Muslim. No, he’s a Christian, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But, if he were a Muslim, so what? The U.S. Constitution, in Article VI, prohibits religious tests for office.
Second, if elected, Sen. Obama would take the oath of office on the Qur’an instead of the Bible. Have any of these nitwits bothered to research on which holy book the senator placed his hand when he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate in 2005? Besides, what difference does it make? There’s no constitutional or statutory requirement that officeholders must swear on the Bible (or on any book at all).
Third, Sen. Obama, living in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10 with his mother and her second husband, attended a Muslim school. Now there’s a shocker! The population of Indonesia is almost 90 percent Muslim, so what kind of school would one expect to find there? Baptist?
Fourth, his full name is Barack Hussein Obama. So? Is the hate-mongers’ point that he shares a name with Saddam Hussein? He also shares a name with King Hussein of Jordan (1935-1999), who was as much a good guy as Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. “Hussein” is a common name in the Middle East and Africa--the senator’s father was a Kenyan--and it translates into English as “beautiful” or “handsome.” It certainly was sinister of the senator’s parents to think he was good-looking enough to give him that middle name! By the way, “Barack” translates into English as “blessed.” Don’t we want a President who is both blessed and handsome?
Fifth, the church that Sen. Obama attends is anti-white. Trinity United Church of Christ describes itself as “Africentric,” expressing its pride in the ethnicity of its parishioners, but that doesn’t mean it’s anti-white. I’m proud of my dual British Isles/Italian ancestry, but that doesn’t make me anti-every other ethnic group! The senator’s mother was Ann Dunham, a white woman from Wichita, Kansas. When Barack was two years old, his parents separated, and they later divorced. He grew up surrounded by his mother’s middle-class white family. I seriously doubt that his life experiences have made him a hater of white folks.
Sixth (and finally), there’s that photo of the senator, taken in Iowa last summer, standing while the National Anthem is being played, but without his right hand on his heart. OK, let’s assume that the photo isn’t a fake. All that would prove is that the senator doesn’t know proper etiquette any better than the 40th, 41st, 42nd and 43rd Presidents. President Reagan began a tradition of returning salutes from uniformed military personnel, despite his not being in uniform himself. Presidents Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have continued that inappropriate behavior. I haven’t received a single e-mail critical of any of them.
Parva leves capiunt animas. (Small minds concern themselves with trifles.) In determining whom we would vote for, can we please focus on the problems facing America and evaluate how each of the candidates proposes to deal with them?
First, Sen. Obama is a Muslim. No, he’s a Christian, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But, if he were a Muslim, so what? The U.S. Constitution, in Article VI, prohibits religious tests for office.
Second, if elected, Sen. Obama would take the oath of office on the Qur’an instead of the Bible. Have any of these nitwits bothered to research on which holy book the senator placed his hand when he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate in 2005? Besides, what difference does it make? There’s no constitutional or statutory requirement that officeholders must swear on the Bible (or on any book at all).
Third, Sen. Obama, living in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10 with his mother and her second husband, attended a Muslim school. Now there’s a shocker! The population of Indonesia is almost 90 percent Muslim, so what kind of school would one expect to find there? Baptist?
Fourth, his full name is Barack Hussein Obama. So? Is the hate-mongers’ point that he shares a name with Saddam Hussein? He also shares a name with King Hussein of Jordan (1935-1999), who was as much a good guy as Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. “Hussein” is a common name in the Middle East and Africa--the senator’s father was a Kenyan--and it translates into English as “beautiful” or “handsome.” It certainly was sinister of the senator’s parents to think he was good-looking enough to give him that middle name! By the way, “Barack” translates into English as “blessed.” Don’t we want a President who is both blessed and handsome?
Fifth, the church that Sen. Obama attends is anti-white. Trinity United Church of Christ describes itself as “Africentric,” expressing its pride in the ethnicity of its parishioners, but that doesn’t mean it’s anti-white. I’m proud of my dual British Isles/Italian ancestry, but that doesn’t make me anti-every other ethnic group! The senator’s mother was Ann Dunham, a white woman from Wichita, Kansas. When Barack was two years old, his parents separated, and they later divorced. He grew up surrounded by his mother’s middle-class white family. I seriously doubt that his life experiences have made him a hater of white folks.
Sixth (and finally), there’s that photo of the senator, taken in Iowa last summer, standing while the National Anthem is being played, but without his right hand on his heart. OK, let’s assume that the photo isn’t a fake. All that would prove is that the senator doesn’t know proper etiquette any better than the 40th, 41st, 42nd and 43rd Presidents. President Reagan began a tradition of returning salutes from uniformed military personnel, despite his not being in uniform himself. Presidents Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have continued that inappropriate behavior. I haven’t received a single e-mail critical of any of them.
Parva leves capiunt animas. (Small minds concern themselves with trifles.) In determining whom we would vote for, can we please focus on the problems facing America and evaluate how each of the candidates proposes to deal with them?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Huckabee
Campaigning in Michigan, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee explained why he supports two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a human life amendment and an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman: “I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”
Why stop there, Huck? The Constitution contemplates the killing of a convicted criminal by either the federal government (Fifth Amendment) or a state government (Fourteenth Amendment) because the deprivation of a person’s life is permitted with due process of law. That clearly conflicts with one of God’s Commandments: You shall not kill. Huck, did you think about the word of the living God when you bragged about having carried out the death penalty 16 time when you were Governor of Arkansas, more than any other Arkansas Governor in history?
And, Huck, what about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? That needs to be looked at too. It gives Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. That directly contradicts the words of Jesus, in both Matthew 5: 43-48 and Luke 6: 27-36. Huck, did you think about the word of the living God when you supported the war in Iraq from its beginning, and do you think about the word of the living God as you continue to support that war?
Huck, some have called you a huckster, but you’re worse than that: you’re a cafeteria Christian.
Why stop there, Huck? The Constitution contemplates the killing of a convicted criminal by either the federal government (Fifth Amendment) or a state government (Fourteenth Amendment) because the deprivation of a person’s life is permitted with due process of law. That clearly conflicts with one of God’s Commandments: You shall not kill. Huck, did you think about the word of the living God when you bragged about having carried out the death penalty 16 time when you were Governor of Arkansas, more than any other Arkansas Governor in history?
And, Huck, what about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? That needs to be looked at too. It gives Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. That directly contradicts the words of Jesus, in both Matthew 5: 43-48 and Luke 6: 27-36. Huck, did you think about the word of the living God when you supported the war in Iraq from its beginning, and do you think about the word of the living God as you continue to support that war?
Huck, some have called you a huckster, but you’re worse than that: you’re a cafeteria Christian.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
I'm back!
When I returned from a visit to California last August, my AOL connection was non-existent. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to fix the problem and after a move to a new apartment (at which Verizon couldn't get me a dial tone for my landline phone), I finally joined the 21st century: I abandoned landline phone service, a dial-up modem and AOL. Anyway, after several months without writing a blog, I'm in business again. My caustic comments are back!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
