Catholics and climate change

As I drive streets of my area and elsewhere, I often see cars sporting bumper stickers bearing the legend "I'm Catholic and I Vote," and I often wonder not so much about what the cars' owners mean but what they could mean, for the Catholic Church's teachings on disparate political issues can easily carrying very different political messages for voters in the world of American politics.

I sort of assume that for many such drivers, the statement is more than anything else a coded phrase on abortion and abortion rights, which would imply a vote for right-wing Republicans and/or anti-choice conservative Democrats. But it could just as easily signify support for social welfare or economic justice, or against capital punishment or aggressive war, for the Church's teachings on these topics are very clear, and definitely don't favor the electoral interests of those conservatives and right-wingers.

With that in mind I read with great interest recent comments by Pope Francis that "We are the Custodians of Creation," a point expanded upon by a Vatican statement* that
  
The perspective given by this spiritual gift leads us to respect God’s gift of creation and to exercise wise stewardship of its resources for the benefit of the whole human family.

A recent editorial in the National Catholic Reporter on climate change expands upon that point.

The problem is enormous, but so is the opportunity for the church to use its resources, its access to some of the best experts in its academies and the attention of those in its parochial structures to begin to educate. This is a human life issue of enormous proportions, and one in which the young should be fully engaged. 

Finding a fix for climate change and its potentially disastrous consequences, particularly for the global poor, is not the work of a single discipline or a single group or a single political strategy. Its solution lies as much in people of faith as in scientific data, as much or more in a love for God's creation as it does in our instinct for self-preservation.

I tend to look at public policy and environmental issues from a secular persepctive, but this line of reasoning is extremely apt. For better or for worse, we are the stewards of our planet, and the message for those of us who see a divine purpose in that stewardship, the message is very, very clear. 

If those bumper-sticker Catholic voters mean to say that they are "Pro-Life," there should no bigger issue than the stewardship of our planet. For them, or for anybody else. 

------------------------------------------

*  Andrew C. Revkin, "Pope Francis: 'We are Custodians of Creation'," New York Times, May 22, 2014

Sure wish a real Democrat would step forward

Virginia's gubernatorial race has two Republicans entered, but no Democrats.

The right wing Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, wants to lower taxes on corporations and the more affluent individual taxpayers. He proposes to cut the personal income tax from 5.75% to 5%, but this won't affect low-wage workers at all. He also proposes to cut the corporate income tax from 6% to 4%, which would be better news for stockholders than stockboys.

The "moderate Republican," Terry McAuliffe, will be listed on the ballot as a Democrat, but he isn't one. His tax proposal calls for eliminating or reducing a variety of business taxes. Again, nothing for low-wage workers, or even moderate-wage workers.

If there were a Democrat running who wanted to cut taxes, she or he would be looking at cutting the taxes that burden low-wage workers. Like the sales tax on food. Like extending upwards the lower income tax rate ceiling and floor, providing a break to low income Virginians without much affecting the rich ones. A real Democrat might also propose providing a property tax benefit for renters. After all, renters do pay property tax, if only indirectly; landlords certainly aren't paying such taxes out of their own pocket.

But no, there aren't any Democrats running in the state's gubernatorial contest.

I sure wish there was a viable third party who represented the bottom 80% or so. 

Does Perry really mean it?

Texas governor Rick Perry wants to Washington “as inconsequential in your lives as [he] can.”

I'm sure that will sell well with the right-wing of the Republican party, but let's think about what he's saying, and take him at his word.

Taken literally, he's saying that our military should be "inconsequential," that we shouldn't be bothered with a strong national defense.

Is he saying that America's seniors should be denied the "inconsequential" benefits of Social Security and Medicare, and sink into poverty instead?

Should Americans with asthma and any of the rest of us who like to breathe see air pollution standards as "inconsequential?" Is clean water an "inconsequential" factor in our health?

Forget about the USDA protecting the wholesomeness of foods we buy in the market; like all other federal regulatory efforts, that activity is "inconsequential" in Perry's vision of our nation.

How many workers who have lost their jobs view unemployment benefits as "inconsequential?"

How many Americans consider that FDIC insurance is "inconsequential" when it protects their savings when banks collapse?

Try driving somewhere. It would be hard to do it in a Perry-esque world where our Interstate highway system is "inconsequential."

Are efforts to wean us away from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil "inconsequential?" I guess that governor Perry thinks so.

What happens to organized crime if the FBI is made "inconsequential?"

The list goes on and on. It's easy and maybe even gratifying to complain about the Washington, but we should stop and wonder how "inconsequential" we really want our government to be, how "inconsequential" we want the United States of America to be. The federal government is a vital and beneficial part of American life, and our nation would fall into chaos and misery if Rick Perry really succeeded with this idiotic pledge.

For us all, and for our nation, making our government "inconsequential" would have terrible consequences .


P.S. And what happens to national security when Rick Perry encourages a Chinese firm which both the Bush and Obama administrations view as posing a threat to U.S. cybersecurity? Will its potential for harming the U.S. be "inconsequential" too?

Media malfeasance in Ames

The "Iowa Straw Poll" held in Ames yesterday was hardly the model of democracy. Not only did Iowans have to get to the Ames fairground, but they had to pay $30 to participate in the process. Hardly a good way to get a representative sampling of Iowa's electorate, or even of that state's Republicans. Which makes sense, because it's really a fund-raising dinner for Iowa's Republican party.

But the even comes loaded with hype, and the media are eager to cast it as an important test of candidates' appeal in the presidential "horse race." So what should be seen as an unimportant partisan fund-raiser takes on a significance far beyond anything that can be justified.

Anyway, a grand total of 16,584 made the drive to Ames (did anyone take public transit or bike there?) to ante up their $30. And the media anointed the results with suggestions of those magical terms "mandate" and "momentum." The front-runners had a lot to gain, and any candidate who didn't do as well as the pundits thought they should was condemned to marginality.

So Michele Bachmann got the support of the grand total of 4,823 ticket-buyers (fewer than three in ten of the attendees) and is declared the winner. By contrast, Tim Pawlenty finished third with nearly half as many, but the media called that a "major setback" him and it must have been, because he immediately dropped out of the race.

I'm not great fan of Pawlenty's, but shouldn't we as Americans be alarmed that such an inconsequential event as this minor small state partisan fund-raising event should be deemed so important that it can knock a candidate who has governed a fairly large state out of the race because he trailed another candidate by the support of a mere 2,530 people who decided to spend their Saturday traveling to Ames to pay $30 so they could hobnob with the candidates?

This is not how a democratic republic should work. Those in the media should be ashamed of what they have done, and we in the electorate should be appalled at how we allow them to twist, undermine and emaculate our electoral process.

Romney's epiphany

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

-- Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair, August 11, 2011

Do unto the Republicans as they have done unto us

After yesterday's election in which the electorate rewarded the "Party of No" for thwarting every effort to improve Americans' lives and condition, President Obama said he takes "direct responsibility" for the failure to improve the nation's economy, and pledged to work with the strengthened Republicans. Meanwhile, Senator Reid said the vote shows Americans want jobs and cooperation.

That's like a robbery victim offering to co-sign bank loans for the criminal because the crime merely proved that the perp wanted the victim's cooperation in obtaining better access to funds.

The Republicans top goals were and are getting rid of President Obama, and preserving the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. They have manifestly proven they have no interest in boosting employment or in seeking bipartisanship. Their electoral success was solely the result of their implacable opposition to everything the Democrats tried to do coupled with their success in blaming the Democrats for the impasse, while the Democrats dithered away their majority by foolishly holding on to a patriotic hope for bipartisanship.

Now that the Republicans have the House, what makes President Obama and Senator Reid think they'll be any more interested in compromise than they were before? Do they think that if they compromise with the Republicans that either they or they nation will benefit? No, all they would accomplish would be to further strengthen the Republicans at great cost to themselves and the American people. The Republicans aren't out to restore bipartisanship or help the nation; they're out to help the fat cats lurking behind them and to gain power for themselves. They clearly care nothing for the welfare of the country.

The Democrats must come to realize that giving in to the Republicans is suicidal for them, and harmful to the nation. President Obama and the Democrats' legislative leaders must oppose the Republican agenda just as unwaveringly as the Republicans opposed theirs.