What great timing! In the midst of our national debate over health-care reform, my Fall 2009 issue of Italian America magazine arrived in the mail the other day. Included is an article by Martin Gani, a free-lance writer who lives in Como, Italy, on the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), Italy’s national health service. The next three paragraphs are a summary of Signor Gani’s article.
Universal health care for all Italians has existed since 1978. How do Italians pay for the SSN? All workers and professionals pay a “health tax.” In 2007, Italy spent a little under nine percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for health care. By comparison, in 2007 the United States spent 16 percent of its GDP on health care. That reminds me of Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s response to a question in 2008 concerning how we would pay for his universal health care proposal: His response was that we’re already paying for it, but we’re not getting it! Italians pay money for health care, and we Americans pay money to fill the coffers of health insurance companies.
About 653,000 Italians work for the SSN, of whom about 106,000 are doctors. Every Italian citizen may consult his or her family doctor at no cost. Hospital tests that are prescribed by family doctors are quite affordable; for example, a basic blood test costs from $14 to $28, and a CAT scan costs from $42 to $56. Essential prescription drugs cost a few dollars. Consultation with a specialist costs $28 to $40, but, if the patient needs surgery and is hospitalized, all diagnostic tests, the surgery, treatment and medicines are free.
The SSN treats all foreigners working and living in Italy and some foreign tourists the same as Italian citizens. Only foreign tourists from the European Union and those from countries with whom Italy has a bilateral agreement receive the same treatment as Italian citizens. (The United States has no agreement with Italy.)
What I hear over and over again in this country is that many Americans object to paying taxes to pay for “somebody else’s” health insurance. Like Cain, when confronted by the Lord after he had slain his brother, Abel, they deny that they are their “brothers’ keepers.” Apparently, more Italians than Americans are familiar with Matthew 25:31-46!
My maternal grandmother, Maria Di Camillo, came to the United States as an 18-year-old in 1913, leaving behind her younger sister, Giovina Di Camillo. My great-aunt Giovina died in Italy in 1979, aged 75, one year after universal health care was achieved in Italy. If my grandmother were still alive today, she would be 114 years old, and living in a country without universal health care. Sadly, I must conclude that Giovina remained in the civilized country, and Maria migrated to the uncivilized country.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Red-State Socialism?
South Carolina. Home of Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who has stated publicly that, if the GOP can prevent passage of health-care reform, it will be President Obama’s “Waterloo.” Home of Republican Congressman Joe (“You Lie”) Wilson. Presumably the home of millions of “tea-baggers,” some of whom descended on the nation’s capital this past weekend to protest, among other things, paying taxes to Washington.
South Carolina. According to the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan but conservative think tank, the Palmetto State receives $1.35 in federal spending for each $1.00 it pays in federal taxes. South Carolinians annually pay about $20 billion in federal taxes but receive about $27 billion in federal spending. South Carolinians are getting more than they give. They are benefiting from a redistribution of wealth. South Carolina is being subsidized by the 18 states that pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, 17 OF WHICH VOTED FOR THE OBAMA-BIDEN TICKET IN LAST YEAR’S ELECTION.
Kentucky. Home of conservative Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, and Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who is so far to the right that you can’t see him without high-powered binoculars. Kentucky. According to the Tax Foundation, The Bluegrass State receives $1.51 in federal spending for each $1.00 that it pays in federal taxes. The “Dark and Bloody Ground” is being subsidized to an even greater degree by the “blue” states than is South Carolina.
Oklahoma. Solidly conservative and solidly Republican. The McCain-Palin ticket carried EVERY county in Oklahoma. Sooners don’t believe in redistribution of wealth, right? Well … it depends on which way it’s being redistributed: Oklahoma receives $1.36 in federal spending for each $1.00 it pays in federal taxes. Oklahomans are also being subsidized by the “blue-staters.”
In summary, 21 of the 22 states that voted for the McCain-Palin ticket RECEIVE MORE MONEY IN FEDERAL SPENDING THAN THEY PAY IN FEDERAL TAXES: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. That reads like a “Who’s Who” of Republicanism, doesn’t it?
Republicans don’t believe in “socialism”; they don’t believe in the redistribution of wealth … unless, of course, they’re on the receiving end.
South Carolina. According to the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan but conservative think tank, the Palmetto State receives $1.35 in federal spending for each $1.00 it pays in federal taxes. South Carolinians annually pay about $20 billion in federal taxes but receive about $27 billion in federal spending. South Carolinians are getting more than they give. They are benefiting from a redistribution of wealth. South Carolina is being subsidized by the 18 states that pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, 17 OF WHICH VOTED FOR THE OBAMA-BIDEN TICKET IN LAST YEAR’S ELECTION.
Kentucky. Home of conservative Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, and Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who is so far to the right that you can’t see him without high-powered binoculars. Kentucky. According to the Tax Foundation, The Bluegrass State receives $1.51 in federal spending for each $1.00 that it pays in federal taxes. The “Dark and Bloody Ground” is being subsidized to an even greater degree by the “blue” states than is South Carolina.
Oklahoma. Solidly conservative and solidly Republican. The McCain-Palin ticket carried EVERY county in Oklahoma. Sooners don’t believe in redistribution of wealth, right? Well … it depends on which way it’s being redistributed: Oklahoma receives $1.36 in federal spending for each $1.00 it pays in federal taxes. Oklahomans are also being subsidized by the “blue-staters.”
In summary, 21 of the 22 states that voted for the McCain-Palin ticket RECEIVE MORE MONEY IN FEDERAL SPENDING THAN THEY PAY IN FEDERAL TAXES: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. That reads like a “Who’s Who” of Republicanism, doesn’t it?
Republicans don’t believe in “socialism”; they don’t believe in the redistribution of wealth … unless, of course, they’re on the receiving end.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Harry
The outbreak of protests against a national health care plan, including stormy town-hall meetings and gun-toting Obama-haters, reminds me of my father, who died more than 32 years ago. I’ve commented before on the wisdom of Harry Merle Stonestreet, a steelworker who didn’t have the benefit of any post-secondary education. Two of his views that he constantly expressed to me during my childhood are especially relevant to today’s crisis.
With respect to guns, we never had any in our house. Dad wouldn’t permit it. He was as extreme in his opposition to firearms as the National Rifle Association is in its assertion of the right of American citizens to own, carry and use submachine guns. Now, mind you, despite his not being a hunter, he had no problem with guns used for hunting. It was handguns, assault rifles and the like that bothered him. He said over and over again, “If you have weapons like that around the house, somebody is going to get killed.” At the time, I thought his anti-gun position was simplistic, but, now, when I see the pistol-packing, protesting pinheads, I’m not so sure. Especially unconvincing is their stated reason for taking their guns to the anti-Obama rallies: not to intimidate anybody, but rather to affirm their Second-Amendment rights. Yeah. Sure.
Dad also had an unconventional view of the American Revolution. He maintained that the rebellion was unnecessary, that we eventually would have become independent without bloodshed. Besides, he argued, being united with the mother country longer would have made us more civilized. Wow! That’s heretical, isn’t it? Anybody who states such ideas should be required to stand in the corner and sing “God Bless America” 100 times, right? But, now, as with his view on guns, I’m not so sure. One event that hastened the War for Independence was a 1772 British court decision that freed James Somersett, the slave of Massachusetts colonist Charles Steuart. Somersett accompanied his master to England in 1769, escaped in 1771 and was baptized. He was captured and imprisoned, but his godparents obtained a writ of habeas corpus, resulting in the decision that freed him. The American slavocracy was enraged. As English writer Samuel Johnson sarcastically commented, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” Slavery, although never mentioned by name in the Constitution, became firmly entrenched in the United States until its abolition by the 13th Amendment in 1865, following the bloody four years of the Civil War. By contrast, English common law had never recognized slavery, and the United Kingdom banned slavery by statute in 1833. (British participation in the slave trade was made unlawful in 1807.)
As the right-wing loonies assail “government-controlled” health care, focusing on the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, surely the British must be wondering why so many Americans want no part of health care that is more efficient, less expensive and covers everybody. Sixty-one years after the National Health Service was instituted, many Americans don’t want quality, universal health care; will shout anybody down who disagrees with them; and apparently will begin shooting if necessary. Surely the British must be thinking that we Americans gained independence prematurely, before they had time to civilize us.
It’s said that, as we get older, our parents get smarter. I believe it.
With respect to guns, we never had any in our house. Dad wouldn’t permit it. He was as extreme in his opposition to firearms as the National Rifle Association is in its assertion of the right of American citizens to own, carry and use submachine guns. Now, mind you, despite his not being a hunter, he had no problem with guns used for hunting. It was handguns, assault rifles and the like that bothered him. He said over and over again, “If you have weapons like that around the house, somebody is going to get killed.” At the time, I thought his anti-gun position was simplistic, but, now, when I see the pistol-packing, protesting pinheads, I’m not so sure. Especially unconvincing is their stated reason for taking their guns to the anti-Obama rallies: not to intimidate anybody, but rather to affirm their Second-Amendment rights. Yeah. Sure.
Dad also had an unconventional view of the American Revolution. He maintained that the rebellion was unnecessary, that we eventually would have become independent without bloodshed. Besides, he argued, being united with the mother country longer would have made us more civilized. Wow! That’s heretical, isn’t it? Anybody who states such ideas should be required to stand in the corner and sing “God Bless America” 100 times, right? But, now, as with his view on guns, I’m not so sure. One event that hastened the War for Independence was a 1772 British court decision that freed James Somersett, the slave of Massachusetts colonist Charles Steuart. Somersett accompanied his master to England in 1769, escaped in 1771 and was baptized. He was captured and imprisoned, but his godparents obtained a writ of habeas corpus, resulting in the decision that freed him. The American slavocracy was enraged. As English writer Samuel Johnson sarcastically commented, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” Slavery, although never mentioned by name in the Constitution, became firmly entrenched in the United States until its abolition by the 13th Amendment in 1865, following the bloody four years of the Civil War. By contrast, English common law had never recognized slavery, and the United Kingdom banned slavery by statute in 1833. (British participation in the slave trade was made unlawful in 1807.)
As the right-wing loonies assail “government-controlled” health care, focusing on the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, surely the British must be wondering why so many Americans want no part of health care that is more efficient, less expensive and covers everybody. Sixty-one years after the National Health Service was instituted, many Americans don’t want quality, universal health care; will shout anybody down who disagrees with them; and apparently will begin shooting if necessary. Surely the British must be thinking that we Americans gained independence prematurely, before they had time to civilize us.
It’s said that, as we get older, our parents get smarter. I believe it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Spending
In 1770 French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote,
“On en trouve [l’argent] toujours quand il s’agit d’aller faire tuer des hommes sur la frontière: il n’y en a plus quand il faut les sauver.” (“Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, it is no longer so.”)
No truer words were ever spoken, and, unfortunately, what was true in 1770 is still true today. For eight years, our federal government borrowed money like a credit-card abuser and spent money like a drunken sailor (the latter simile attributable to Senator John McCain) to pay for a war in Iraq that nobody has yet figured out why we started in the first place.
Now we have a President who is trying to shift our priorities from “sending people to the frontiers” to “preserving them,” but THAT kind of spending is unacceptable to the thousands who gathered in “Tea Party” protests April 15th. We heard nary a peep out of those same protesters when Bush, et al. were running up the greatest budget deficit in our history because, presumably, the Tea Party people are infected with the same mindless jingoism that Voltaire condemned almost 240 years ago. Presumably they believe that spending to kill human beings is appropriate, but spending to help people to get back to work or provide them with affordable health care is not.
A few days ago I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that read “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money.” My guess is that the driver of that pickup truck believes that his freedom depends on his not paying taxes and using his gun to shoot anybody who tries to take his money and spend it on something “frivolous” like improving the human condition.
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935) is supposed to have said, “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” Justice Holmes was right. Paying taxes is patriotic, especially when those taxes are used for improving the quality of life instead of destroying life.
“On en trouve [l’argent] toujours quand il s’agit d’aller faire tuer des hommes sur la frontière: il n’y en a plus quand il faut les sauver.” (“Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, it is no longer so.”)
No truer words were ever spoken, and, unfortunately, what was true in 1770 is still true today. For eight years, our federal government borrowed money like a credit-card abuser and spent money like a drunken sailor (the latter simile attributable to Senator John McCain) to pay for a war in Iraq that nobody has yet figured out why we started in the first place.
Now we have a President who is trying to shift our priorities from “sending people to the frontiers” to “preserving them,” but THAT kind of spending is unacceptable to the thousands who gathered in “Tea Party” protests April 15th. We heard nary a peep out of those same protesters when Bush, et al. were running up the greatest budget deficit in our history because, presumably, the Tea Party people are infected with the same mindless jingoism that Voltaire condemned almost 240 years ago. Presumably they believe that spending to kill human beings is appropriate, but spending to help people to get back to work or provide them with affordable health care is not.
A few days ago I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that read “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money.” My guess is that the driver of that pickup truck believes that his freedom depends on his not paying taxes and using his gun to shoot anybody who tries to take his money and spend it on something “frivolous” like improving the human condition.
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935) is supposed to have said, “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” Justice Holmes was right. Paying taxes is patriotic, especially when those taxes are used for improving the quality of life instead of destroying life.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture
“The healthy man does not torture others--generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” - Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961).
President Obama’s release of the secret Bush Administration documents that contained the “justification” for torture techniques such as waterboarding has generated much debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney argues that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” resulted in our obtaining valuable information. Here in West Virginia, MetroNews radio talk-show host “Hoppy” Kercheval has alleged that our junior U.S. Senator, Jay Rockefeller, knew about and approved of the torture because, at the time, he was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
I have serious doubts that torture results in any useful information for its practitioners. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, has consistently maintained that what torture accomplishes is to cause the person being tortured to say what the torturer wants to hear, whether it is true or not. Senator McCain knows a little something about torture; certainly, he knows more than former Vice President Cheney, a draft-dodger who sought and received five deferments to avoid the Vietnam War.
But whether torture “works” or not is beside the point. The point is that, as Jung said, only sick people order, engage in or condone torture. (If Senator Rockefeller knew about and approved of the torture, then, in my eyes, he is as guilty as those who ordered and engaged in it.) Call me naïve if you will, but, as one who is proud to be an American, I think that we are better than that. Must we become like our enemies to defeat them? If we do, then what have we accomplished?
Now comes the disturbing news. The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center show that 49 percent of all Americans polled believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes. However, most disturbing of all is the breakdown of the survey relative to churchgoing frequency. Of those who attend religious services at least weekly, 54 percent believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes; of those who attend religious services monthly or a few times a year, 51 percent; of those who attend religious services seldom or never, 42 percent. What are those people learning at their religious services? Or--and this is even scarier--what are those people being TAUGHT at their religious services?
According to Yale University religious historian Sydney Ahlstrom (1919-1984), the early part of the 19th century was characterized by an individual approach to religion: “The quest for holiness, however, came to take a very individualistic line. The accent was on vices of persons, not evil in the forms of society. Reform meant change in the individual, not the tearing up or modification of a social contract that had been religiously approved.”
It is sad to say, but Ahlstrom could easily have been talking about 2009.
President Obama’s release of the secret Bush Administration documents that contained the “justification” for torture techniques such as waterboarding has generated much debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney argues that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” resulted in our obtaining valuable information. Here in West Virginia, MetroNews radio talk-show host “Hoppy” Kercheval has alleged that our junior U.S. Senator, Jay Rockefeller, knew about and approved of the torture because, at the time, he was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
I have serious doubts that torture results in any useful information for its practitioners. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, has consistently maintained that what torture accomplishes is to cause the person being tortured to say what the torturer wants to hear, whether it is true or not. Senator McCain knows a little something about torture; certainly, he knows more than former Vice President Cheney, a draft-dodger who sought and received five deferments to avoid the Vietnam War.
But whether torture “works” or not is beside the point. The point is that, as Jung said, only sick people order, engage in or condone torture. (If Senator Rockefeller knew about and approved of the torture, then, in my eyes, he is as guilty as those who ordered and engaged in it.) Call me naïve if you will, but, as one who is proud to be an American, I think that we are better than that. Must we become like our enemies to defeat them? If we do, then what have we accomplished?
Now comes the disturbing news. The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center show that 49 percent of all Americans polled believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes. However, most disturbing of all is the breakdown of the survey relative to churchgoing frequency. Of those who attend religious services at least weekly, 54 percent believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes; of those who attend religious services monthly or a few times a year, 51 percent; of those who attend religious services seldom or never, 42 percent. What are those people learning at their religious services? Or--and this is even scarier--what are those people being TAUGHT at their religious services?
According to Yale University religious historian Sydney Ahlstrom (1919-1984), the early part of the 19th century was characterized by an individual approach to religion: “The quest for holiness, however, came to take a very individualistic line. The accent was on vices of persons, not evil in the forms of society. Reform meant change in the individual, not the tearing up or modification of a social contract that had been religiously approved.”
It is sad to say, but Ahlstrom could easily have been talking about 2009.
Friday, January 23, 2009
I was there
Dupont Circle, January 19th: A crowd has gathered, and the people are throwing shoes at a large, inflatable George W. Bush. Muntazer al-Zaidi, wherever he is, is vindicated.
Not far from Dupont Circle, January 19th: A Catholic church sports a sign that thanks President Bush for “protecting life,” reminding me of the unfortunate truth that many of my fellow Catholics believe that an embryonic stem cell is a person, but a pregnant Iraqi whose death (along with the death of her unborn child) is caused by Bush’s unnecessary war on the Iraqi people apparently is not. This shallow thinking ignores Pope John Paul II’s March 2003 characterization of the invasion of Iraq as neither morally nor legally justified. Or is it that the Catholics who support Bush and his policies think of themselves as holier than the pope?
Union Jack’s, a pub in Arlington, the evening of January 19th: The crawler across the bottom of the big-screen television tells us that Vice President Cheney will be in a wheelchair the next day at the Inauguration. Most of the customers cheer. Disrespectful? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that one reaps what one sows.
Inauguration Day: President Bush appears, and there is groaning in the crowd, which eventually turns to scattered boos. Somebody starts singing, “Na-na-na-na; na-na-na-na; hey; hey; good-bye;….” It catches the fancy of many in the crowd. I join in. Again, one reaps what one sows. One cannot treat the Constitution and Laws of the United States with disrespect and expect to be treated with respect by the people.
The swearing-in: Despite Chief Justice Roberts’s botching the oath, Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th President. The crowd, which has been holding its collective breath (afraid that somehow, somebody or something would prevent this happy moment from taking place) exhales and erupts. Tears are running down cheeks, and people are hugging people whom they do not know, have never seen before and will never see again.
After the ceremonies: As the helicopter with the former first family flies overhead, many people begin to cheer. Two thoughts enter my mind: (1) Gone at last! Gone at last! Thank God Almighty! George W. Bush is gone at last! (2) The Village of Crawford, Texas, is no longer missing its Village Idiot.
Back home in West Virginia, January 22d: I sit down to breakfast at Harding’s, a restaurant just north of Charleston. A man near me says (to nobody in particular), “What’s so special about this Inauguration? It was just another Black man moving into public housing!” I announce that I was at the Inauguration and that it was special to me. Another man asks me whether I heard the “inappropriate” benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery. I tell him that it was a great prayer, that I heard nothing inappropriate.
I was there. Now I’m back here.
Not far from Dupont Circle, January 19th: A Catholic church sports a sign that thanks President Bush for “protecting life,” reminding me of the unfortunate truth that many of my fellow Catholics believe that an embryonic stem cell is a person, but a pregnant Iraqi whose death (along with the death of her unborn child) is caused by Bush’s unnecessary war on the Iraqi people apparently is not. This shallow thinking ignores Pope John Paul II’s March 2003 characterization of the invasion of Iraq as neither morally nor legally justified. Or is it that the Catholics who support Bush and his policies think of themselves as holier than the pope?
Union Jack’s, a pub in Arlington, the evening of January 19th: The crawler across the bottom of the big-screen television tells us that Vice President Cheney will be in a wheelchair the next day at the Inauguration. Most of the customers cheer. Disrespectful? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that one reaps what one sows.
Inauguration Day: President Bush appears, and there is groaning in the crowd, which eventually turns to scattered boos. Somebody starts singing, “Na-na-na-na; na-na-na-na; hey; hey; good-bye;….” It catches the fancy of many in the crowd. I join in. Again, one reaps what one sows. One cannot treat the Constitution and Laws of the United States with disrespect and expect to be treated with respect by the people.
The swearing-in: Despite Chief Justice Roberts’s botching the oath, Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th President. The crowd, which has been holding its collective breath (afraid that somehow, somebody or something would prevent this happy moment from taking place) exhales and erupts. Tears are running down cheeks, and people are hugging people whom they do not know, have never seen before and will never see again.
After the ceremonies: As the helicopter with the former first family flies overhead, many people begin to cheer. Two thoughts enter my mind: (1) Gone at last! Gone at last! Thank God Almighty! George W. Bush is gone at last! (2) The Village of Crawford, Texas, is no longer missing its Village Idiot.
Back home in West Virginia, January 22d: I sit down to breakfast at Harding’s, a restaurant just north of Charleston. A man near me says (to nobody in particular), “What’s so special about this Inauguration? It was just another Black man moving into public housing!” I announce that I was at the Inauguration and that it was special to me. Another man asks me whether I heard the “inappropriate” benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery. I tell him that it was a great prayer, that I heard nothing inappropriate.
I was there. Now I’m back here.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Hypocrisy
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).
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).
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
