Ebola panic

Ebola is a nasty disease and the world needs to mobilize its resources and work to control and prevent it.  Worldwide, the fatality figures from this disease are pushing 5,000.

Alarm and even hysteria about it are rife even in the U.S., but we need to put our Ebola panic in perspective. In the U.S. a grand total of one person, who travelled here infected but asymptomatic, has died.

Meanwhile, in 2011 (the latest year I could easily find stats) the CDC reports that in this country alone, 11,068 people were the victims of firearm homicide. Another 19,990 committed suicide by firearm. 

Where's the outrage? Where's the panic? Where's the wall-to-wall media coverage? Where's the call for governmental action to stop the slaughter? Where is the finger-pointing in the halls of government and the organs of the mass media? Where's the mass condemnation of the agents pushing this particular disease? If we're concerned about a deadly epidemic, why don't we focus on this one?

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

Marco Rubio and faith-based denial

Sen Marco Rubio (R-Fla) came close enough to underhand his hat into the ring today, and in so doing took the expected potshots at Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. 

But what is really striking is his strong assertion of the primacy of faith in determining environmental policy. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said. 

"I do not believe."

What an inspiring approach for addressing a complex problem subject to empirical research; what a noble disdain for the scientific method.

"I do not believe."

Ignore the nearly unanimous voice of the scientific community finding that human activity is responsible for global climate change. Ignore the mountain of data and the flood of scientific papers supporting this understanding (see, for example, the 2011 repot of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the third National Climate Assessment of 2014.

It is enough that Sen. Rubio believes otherwise. And that he can do so without even giving lip service to any need to cite evidence refuting anthropogenic climate change,

Faith-based denial. Faith-based stupidity. Faith-based suicide.

And this is perhaps the best candidate the Republican Party can offer for the White House?

The special irony, of course, is that his state will be at the leading edge for testing the efficacy of establishing environmental policy on the basis of faith, and in the face of all evidence. I would say that it would take a miracle for him to retain the support of a Floridian majority ... except that I know his preference for faith over evidence is probably shared by a distressingly large chunk of Florida's electorate.

People Power in Istanbul

I'm watching with great interest and concern the current developments in Istanbul and elsewhere throughout the Republic of Turkey. 

I have long distrusted the government of Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP). Most of that comes from my general wariness of politicians who exploit conservative, religious populism, and not from any personal knowledge of Turkey. 

But following the increasingly alarming news being reported in the better press outlets available in the U.S., I have become more and more troubled. It has seemed to me that much as rich American ideologues pull the strings manipulating both the seemingly similar strains of right-wing, religious populism in the Republican Party, so it is seeming that Erdogan and the corporate interests and investors backing him are using pious conservatives and traditional to advance a political and economic  far removed from the interests of the masses providing the AKP with its votes.

That said, it is extremely heartening to see the multitudes mobilizing to resist Erdogan and the AKP, and I wish them well. (I also wish we saw their like in the U.S.!)

But don't listen to my views. Turn to the reports flowing from Turkey, from the people challenging the autocracy of the AKP ... flowing, it must be said, through social media; the AKP controlled and intimidated formal media of Turkey have been all but ignoring what is happening under their very noses, while the mainstream press of the west is only beginning to pay attention.

On that note, I recommend recent postings by a dear friend who brings intimate personal knowledge of Turkey combined with considerable wisdom and scholarship, in her own blog, Reflections and Meditations on the Path. 

I Like Ike

There's been a lot written by the punditry on the Republican Party's generation-long lurch rightward and the bankruptcy of their ideology. But few have said it better than the last Republican President to seek consensual governance, Dwight Eisenhower.

Commenting on his party's right wing, Ike said ....

     "The Republican Party must be known as a progressive organization or it is sunk. I believe that so emphatically that I think that far from appeasing or reasoning with the dyed-in-the-wool reactionary fringe, we should completely ignore it and when necessary, repudiate it." 

     "I don't know why anyone should be a member of the Republican Party." 

Such a tragedy that the Dwight Eisenhowers of our era don't exist, having been replaced by the likes of Ted Cruz whose fealty is to their radical ideology and personal fortune, and not our common nation.


----------------------
Source: Quoted in Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower in War and Peace, Random House, 2012, pages and 672 and 649, respectively.

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. 

Rick Perry, demagogue

In reference to Chairman Ben Bernanke and his policy of "quantitative easing:
“Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion .... If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what you all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas” -- Texas governor Rick Perry, August 15, 2011


There's no other way to call it. When a candidate for the nation's highest office uses terms such as "treasonous" to describe the actions of a public official whose clear purpose is to pursue a valid public policy, that candidate is guilty of demagoguery, pure and simple. It doesn't matter whether or not the candidate favors or doesn't doesn't favor the policy in question; treason is one of the most heinous of capital crimes, and invoking such a charge is execrable.

In case one is inclined to dismiss such rhetoric as a "boys will be boys" sort of offense, it is useful to use the "shoe on the other foot" test. Can one imagine President Obama (or Presidents Clinton, Cater, Eisenhower or Coolidge ever using such a phrase to describe a public official with whom the he had a policy difference?

I for one do not want a demagogue as President. I hope the rest of America feels the same way.

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

White bread GOP debt panelists

Okay, I realize that the Republican Party isn't very inclusive, and especially not at its top levels, but the best that Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell could come up with for the joint debt committee were a bunch of white guys in ties?

Nobody expects that members of Congress will be poor or homeless or unemployed, but let's face it: the people who will be most adversely affected by the cuts to be imposed by the panel will be poor or homeless or unemployed, just as they're the ones who have suffered the most from the long-running financial crisis left to America as a key component of George W. Bush's legacy.

But Boehner appointed Jeb Hensarling, Dave Camp and Fred Upton, while McConnell appointed Patrick Toomey, Jon Kyl and Rob Portman. Hensarling is a middle-aged wealthy white business executive from Texas; Camp is a middle-aged white lawyer from Michigan; Upton is a middle-aged white political drone from Michigan; Kyl is a middle-aged white lobbyist from Arizona; Toomey is a white financial wheeler-dealer and business executive from Pennsylvania; and Portman is a white political staffer from Ohio. Not exactly representative of the people suffering from our economic problems.

The Democrats on the panel are obviously not poor, homeless or unemployed either, but two are women, one is Hispanic, one is African American, one was a community organizer, one is a decorated combat veteran, one is the son of working class immigrants, and one is a former high-school teacher. Something tells me that they will bring to the debt discussions a greater intuitive understanding of the plight of ordinary Americans, and a greater awareness of how this unending recession is hurting them far more than it is hurting the moneyed classes so ably represented by the Republican members of the committee.

The Washington Post seems to have noticed the same imbalance: "Debt Supercommittee’s Membership Dominated by White Men."

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.

Such good company we keep

Cluster munitions are weapons such as bombs and artillery shells which contain a number of smaller bomblets which designed to be scattered about on impact. These bomblets, or sub-munitions, can remain active and dangerous long after they are distributed, posing active threats to civilians as they re-occupy the vicinity after the fighting has moved on or stopped.

Thus, a large number of civilians have been killed by cluster munitions have killed over the years, and some estimate that a quarter of them have been children who find unexploded sub-munitions and begin to play with them.

An international treaty banning most forms of cluster bombs was adopted on May 30, 2008 and went into effect August 1, 2010 after it had been ratified by 30 countries. The agreement permits signatories to keep certain types of relatively large submunitions which have self-destruction or de-activation mechanisms, thus permitting them to be used on the battlefield as anti-tank weapons and similar purposes. The treaty was opposed by some major users of cluster bombs, by signed by many others.

So far, 108 nations have signed the agreement, and 43 have ratified it. Among the NATO members which have ratified it are Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. NATO nations which have signed it include Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands. It has also been signed by such other important American allies as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq and Ireland.

Signatories must destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions within ten years, but seven countries have already started doing so, and two more are clearing then from areas where they had been used.

Notable in their refusal to sign are the United States, Israel, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea. The same sorry list has refused to sign the Ottawa treaty on landmines (formerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction). Such good company we keep!

It is time for America to join the community of nations working to make the world - and even the battlefield - safer for civilians. It is time for the United States to sign and ratify both the landmine and cluster munitions treaties.

Sources:

Convention on Cluster Munitions
Alastair Leithead, "Cluster Bomb Stockpiles 'Being Destroyed,'" BBC, November 1, 2010
John F. Burns, "Britain Joins a Draft Treaty on Cluster Munitions," New York Times, May 29, 2008
"Convention on Cluster Munitions," Wikipedia
International Campaign to Ban Landmines

The rich need jobs

There has been a fair amount in the press of late about the anger of the rich, both articles and columns. The rich, the people whose incomes put them in America's top 1%, seem to be increasingly upset about historically mild attempts to reign in some of the advantages they enjoy, steps like letting the Bush II tax cut for the top echelon expire, or limiting the bonuses paid to the top executives of the companies bailed out by the taxpayer, or closing tax loopholes for hedge fund executives, or levying the same Social Security tax on their wages as are levied on most workers, or even - horror of horrors - taxing some of their unearned income at rates corresponding to those levied on the sweat of the working man's brow.




The irony is that what the very rich need more than anything else is political stability. In the final analysis, their wealth and their way of life depend on the great mass of people less affluent than them being sufficiently satisfied with their lot to support the political, social and economic structures which permit the wealthy to exist, and to enjoy their wealth.

But persistently high unemployment and underemployment, increasing disparities in wealth, increasing poverty and increasing hopelessness imperil that stability. It is in the interests of America's very wealthy to support economic and social reforms and policies which would dampen such threats to stability, and they're not doing it.

Too many Americans need jobs, and they need them now. Allowing the Bush II tax cuts for the wealthy will not stimulate the economy or produce jobs. What will work is getting the unemployed back to work, and to do that, we as a nation need to start creating jobs, and the best way to do that would be to start investing in the infrastructural improvements, new technologies and new markets that can keep us competitive in the 21st Century.

Unless we create those jobs, more and more people will become increasingly desperate, and desperation brings enormous risks to stability. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but America is today approaching a point where all bets will be off, and political chaos could be a distinct possibility. The wealthy, just as much as the rest of us, have a vested interest in getting Americans back to work, and restoring hope and optimism throughout our land.

And now I am one

Back when the Obama administration was taking form in the midst of the Bush-era financial debacle, there was considerable discussion of the appropriate scale for a federal stimulus package. The new President opted for a timid approach, perhaps because he didn't want to imperil his chances for bipartisanship, perhaps because he thought he could come back for a second installment if necessary, or perhaps because he thought his timid package would prove adequate. Some political leaders, several prominent economists, and a few progressive pundits thought that Mr. Obama was wrong on all three counts; the Republicans were not interested in bipartisanship, the political consensus needed to pass a stimulus package would soon unravel, and that the package being promoted would prove woefully inadequate.

Sadly, the skeptics were proven right on all counts. The Republicans became the party of "No," much more interested in thwarting President Obama than in helping America. The opportunity proved very short-lived, withering in the face of Republican obstructionism and a sustained rhetorical assault by the right wing -- an opposition unwittingly aided by a curiously detached White House. And the stimulus has proven so inadequate that the county appears to be locked into a long term period of stagnation in which millions upon millions of Americans will suffer as high unemployment numbers remain unchanging and the unemployed slip into long-term unemployment and lives of hopelessness and increasing levels of misery. Meanwhile, America's political leaders seem apathetic to the sufferings of their constituents and astonishingly removed from the realities Americans face.

All along, I've been siding with the progressive skeptics. All along, I've favored a much more aggressive stimulus package (coupled with a rapid drawdown in our pointless and expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a roll-back of the lopsided tax cuts given to the nation's affluent by the Bush administration). All along, I've sided with those who saw this terrible recession as an opportunity to embark on economic development strategies which would improve American competitiveness, address the growing problems of climate change and foreign petroleum dependence, and provide unemployed Americans with modern jobs that would help build our collective future.

But I never thought I was arguing in favor of what I personally would need.

Wrong.

Laid off. In a field which is dying. And of an age where the few prospects available to younger unemployed are unavailable to me.

These are dismal times for our nation. And now they're dismal times for me.

Dismal times, and very humbling. I entered the job market during a recessionary period when jobs were hard to find, and job scarcity has characterized most of my career. And here I am, still years from retirement but with no prospects.

One hopes hope will come, but it seems awfully distant now.

Virginia Treason Month

The governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, my own state, has named April to be "Confederate History Month." One wonders why. What does he think we should celebrate? Treason? Bloody, needless war? The attempted destruction of the United States? Slavery?

Oh, I know, apologists for the secessionists will reject the treason charge. But what is the truth? Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Pickett, Jeb Stuart, Jubal Early, and just about all of the other Confederate "heroes" swore to "bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and [to] serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever." No exceptions, no limitations, no avenues for evasion, no escape clause. And certainly no allowance for rebellion. Oath-breakers, all. Enemies and opposers of the United States. Treason. Is this what Governor McDonell wants to honor?

The same apologists will blithely skip over the terrible blood price of their war, or wrap it in a filmy gauze. But face it; the War of Southern Treason was the bloodiest war in our history, even when counted in absolute numbers; deadlier than both World Wars combined. As a proportion of our population, their war was even worse, killing nearly one out of every 50 Americans, and maiming far more. Those weren't numbers; they were sons, husbands, brothers, fathers, dying in agony, millions of man-years of potential life, snuffed out. Hundreds of thousands of families shattered, widows and children thrust into destitution, wives and mothers keening for their dead. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to celebrate?

The proclamation refers to the South's treasonous war as "a war between the states for independence." Independence? No, destruction of the United States. Destruction just as sure as envisioned by any of our foreign enemies. Funny how many apologists for the Confederacy today proclaim loudly an espoused patriotism for the country their heros tried to destroy. Had the South succeeded in seceding, what would have become of what was left? Every regional squabble would have carried the threat of further dissolution, until North America was utterly Balkanized, with its various fragments lurching form one European alliance to another, dragging us into innumerable wars. Where, then, would have been the bastion of hope, the arsenal of democracy, when the Nazis marched over Europe, when Stalin looked for conquest?

The governor speaks of the "sacrifices" of Confederate leaders and soldiers. What of the sacrifices of the millions of heros who paid with their blood and sweat to save the United States from the terror the Southerners brought to the land? They are the ones I would honor.

And then there was that little matter unmentioned by the governor, that curious institution which bound men and women as property of other men and women. What was slavery? Do they reflect on that as they celebrate "Confederate History Month"? What do those who wax nostalgic for the Old South think of slavery? As little more than a form of employment for those enslaved, exchanging their labor for room and board, and not of much significance beyond that? Slavery was oppression, at its most vile. A human being who had no future but toil. A human being utterly subjected to the whims and caprices of his and her oppressor. Men and women denied the ability to strive for better lives, build families, raise children, know their parents and their brothers and sisters. Women raped to serve the carnal lusts of their oppressors. Men beaten and humiliated to profit and amuse the heartless who commanded them, the psychopaths who abused them. What would the governor have us celebrate about the effect of the Confederacy upon their lives?

Oh, I know, the apologists will argue that the South's treason was about states rights, and a way of life, and an economic order. But slavery was the essential link to all of those things. Without slavery, the supposed cause of states' rights would have been meaningless, except perhaps to debating societies. Without slavery, the Southern way of life wouldn't have existed. Without slavery, the Southern economic order would not have been opposed to the rest of the country. The Civil War was about slavery; the Confederacy was about the debasement of millions of Americans. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to honor?

I hope not. For if it is, neither he nor his supporters understand anything about what America is. The Confederacy belongs in the dustbin of history. If this sorry chapter in Virginia's history is to be remembered, it should be understood for what it was, so that this country can finally overcome the errors that led to this greatest violation of Americans' rights, and our bloodiest war.

Subtle media bias on the mix of religion and politics

A recent article and headline in the New York Times well illustrates the bias prevalent in the mainstream media when they cover abortion and religion. Both the headline and the content of the article "Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues" by Laurie Goodstein imply a unity among Christian leaders which does not exist, especially on the issues which are the central topics of the article, abortion rights and gay rights.

Although many Catholic and evangelical Protestants find the common cause reported in the article, a great many Christian churches, Christian leaders, Christian theologians and lay Christians (including many Catholics and evangelicals) take -- and advocate -- very different perspectives on these issues. Their voices should be reflected in any article and any headline which implies directly or indirectly that it is reporting on some sort of consensus within the Christian community.

Instead, the only critical comment in the article come from an individual affiliated with an academic institution rather than a religious one, implicitly a secular intellectual rather than a believer. The casual reader would wrongly infer from this that the issues involve a divide between religion and academe, but would not be aware of the substantial disagreement within the Christian community itself, as well as the broader religious world.

A more accurate headline would have been "Some Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Unite on Abortion and Gay Rights Issues," or perhaps "Christian Leaders Lack Consensus on Political Issues." A more balanced article would have mentioned some of the prominent voices within the Christian community which favor abortion rights and gay marriage, or at least oppose entangling the state in such issues.

It is also worth noting that the article cites not a single woman on the issue of abortion; all the voices quoted or referenced are men. Curious.

And this is the New York Times, supposed bastion of the effete intellectual snobs of the left.

Response to a response

I received a comment from Jon-Roy Sloan on a posting of mine which suggested that Congress enact an increase in the federal gasoline tax to encourage drivers to conserve fuel, and thereby mitigate several problems facing our nation. The original posting came almost a year ago, when gasoline prices had declined so far that an additional dollar per gallon would have left prices well below what they had been even a few months before. Since the comment goes far beyond that rather narrow topic, I thought it merited a separate discussion.

Here's Sloan's comment, in full, with its native grammatical blemishes:

Why do want the government to regulate every portion of our lives? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? You want government to take even more of my hard earned money and give a rebate to low-income earners? I worked hard, school, military, grad school, to get where I am and you want to take it away because you believe the sky is falling? The weatherman can't accurately predict the weather for more than 24 hours out, and they have only been able to that for the past 8-10 years and you expect me to believe in Al Gore. Apparently your not from Tennessee, there is a reason Tennesseans didn't vote for him in 2000, he is a LIAR and a CHEAT!

I find his comment of considerable interest, particularly because much of what he says isn't at all related to the posting. I'll take his comments point by point.

I was not advocating that government "regulate every portion of our lives." Indeed, quite the contrary. I feel very strongly, for instance, that government should not regulate private behavior which does not adversely affect the interests of other people. For instance, I favor the right of loving couples to marry, regardless of the race or gender(s) of the couple; I favor the right of people to hold and voice the political views they favor regardless of whether their views offend others or even call into question the political and economic policies of the nation at large, I favor the right of individuals to write and publish and read whatever they choose, and I favor the right of all of us to live free from bigotry regardless of our ethnicity, gender, religiosity, or sexual orientation. I may be making an enormously incorrect assumption about Sloan's ideology, but I wonder if he feels the same way?

Yes, I do seriously believe what I am saying. I would not have wanted to take the effort of writing if I didn't, and I think it does little for the sake of discourse to doubt the seriousness with which others propound their opinions.

I gather Sloan opposes the concept of either progressive taxation or government expenditures which do not favor the wealthy, or both. I disagree. The existence, let alone the growth, of substantial income disparities weakens the fibers holding our nation together, yet ever since the so-called "Reagan revolution" that is exactly what has been happening. Income disparities are at their greatest level since such records began to be kept over a century ago. I'm not going to go into the specifics here, as there is a lot of commentary and data supporting this assertion; highly readable collections of resources for those interested can be found in the writings of folks such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. Indeed, I should think that even the very wealthy would be concerned, lest the disparities spark such political turmoil as could threaten their own privileged position. Reduction of those disparities would be of common interest for this reason, if no other. But there are other reasons. A broader sharing of the nation's wealth would promote the national interest by stimulating productivity, encouraging growth, and building a richer, stronger and more cohesive nation. (You'll notice I say nothing here about the ethical implications of such disparities, but I would argue that they are of even greater moment.)

In reply to Sloan's specific complaint about using federal tax policy to transfer some of the wealth of the very affluent to the very poor, I would say "yes." We saw during the Bush years how ineffective and unjust tax policies were when they served to transfer tax burden to the working poor and lower middle class from the very wealthy, and how little those policies did to benefit the nation at large (and here I am being generous). It is time to reverse that trend, and restore some economic justice to our tax system. Frankly, for starters, I'd be happy to see it revert to the level of progressivity we saw during the Reagan years.

What I'm guessing that Sloan is missing here is any understanding of how more equitable federal tax and expenditure policy can benefit the nation at large. Higher education provides one of the most obvious examples, as expenditure and tax policies which make college more affordable for students from less affluent families not only expand the horizons of those students, but enrich the nation at large by increasing our national intellectual capital. Or take the issue that seems to stir Sloan's ire. Higher gasoline prices encourage Americans to use less fuel, either by eliminating unnecessary driving, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, using mass transit more, or biking and walking more. Each of these alternatives provide multiple benefits, among them being a reduction of American reliance on foreign oil (which benefits the economy and national security), reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (which benefits our health, environment, and ability to deal with environmental degradation) and our quality of life (by leading to better exercise, less traffic congestion), while simultaneously providing motivation for our automobile manufacturers to become more globally competitive.

Sloan doesn't like the idea of tax rebates for the working poor, but he is ignoring (or is blind to) a basic question of equity. The working poor are the people least able to upgrade their automobile choices to more modern fuel efficient vehicles, and are most likely to be stuck with older, less efficient cars. A tax -- whether directly imposed by the government or indirectly imposed by the marketplace -- which has the effect of dissuading people from driving gas hogs hits them the hardest, but a rebate of the tax they paid can mitigate that impact, and do so in a very productive way by further encouraging them to switch to more fuel efficient transportation.

Sloan also misses a key aspect of a rebate: the rebate of gas taxes paid by poor consumers to those same consumers is not a transfer of tax revenues from the affluent driver Sloan seems to favor, but a return to the working poor of taxes the working poor have paid out of their own funds.

He also misses the sad fact that many of the working poor work hard too. They just don't have the advantages Sloan presumably has (e.g., college education, including a graduate education), so their hard work doesn't provide them with the income Sloan's hard work provides. That's testimony to a difference in opportunity, not in effort or virtue.

Despite his good education, Sloan then segues into an ignorant dismissal of issues relating to global warming, confusing the uncertainties of short-term weather forecasting with the causes, nature and consequences of global warming. And no, I don't expect Sloan to "believe in Al Gore" (whatever that means) but I do expect any educated and informed human being to be impressed by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming, and to participate in a serious discussion of the issues rather than retreat into silly ad hominem attacks on a single individual, especially ones based on personal anger over matters totally unrelated to the topic nominally at issue.

Unreported elephant in the room

Today a few thousand demonstrators came to Washington to demonstrate against something. It's not clear from listening to them what that "something" is, but nominally, the unifying complaint dealt with high taxes and/or high deficits.

Practically, it can't be either of those. Taxes are no higher now than they have been for several years and there aren't any indications that Congress is moving to increase them. And these people sure didn't show up when George W. Bush was busy turning Bill Clinton's surpluses into huge deficits. I didn't notice any of them joining the multitudes protesting Bush's wars, complaining about the hundreds of billions he was adding to the deficit.

But maybe that's not why they came. Maybe they came to protest the socialistic -- or is it communistic? -- tide sweeping across America in the form of, uh, what? Public funding of fire-fighting? Our nationalized military? Tax-supported schools? Federalized air traffic control? State-owned streets and highways? Social Security and Medicare? (Maybe these people are a little slow?) Uh, no, maybe it's a health care reform proposal which is built around, uh, privately owned insurance companies?

Nope. They may be making the noise, but socialism's surge isn't exactly lapping against these shores yet.

Nor was it about patriotism -- not with all those Confederate flags floating around.

Ah yes, they're upset about President Obama trashing the Constitution. I'm not quite sure how he's supposed to be doing that, but isn't it odd how they weren't here to protest George W. Bush's many transgressions in that regard? Y'know, I doubt many of them could tell you anything about the 14th Amendment; or Article 1, section 8, clause 11; or that pesky little clause in the middle of the Second. Nope, it's not about the Constitution.

Or maybe there's another reason. A reason not mentioned in any of the news coverage I've heard or read about these demonstrations, but apparent when one looks -- really looks -- at the photos of the the demonstrators. All white. I looked through every photo of the demo I could find on the web, and not one -- NOT ONE -- non-white face.

Maybe, just maybe, they're upset that Barack Obama, native of Hawai'i, resident of Illinois, did intentionally move into the White House knowing full well that he is of African ancestry.

Let's face it. Race is the unreported unifying factor among the demonstrators. Race -- or diversity -- is the one theme unifying their anger. These people aren't angry about socialism or deficits or health care or the Constitution. They're angry about the reality that America is a very diverse place, with citizens of differing skin colors, differing religions, differing sexual orientations, differing understandings of what America is. They're angry because President Obama's very existence threatens their fantasy about what America is.

Personally, I'm angry that the media don't delve beyond counting the numbers or parroting the slogans, and examine the real reasons why these people came to Washington. Racism is the elephant in the room, but none of the major media are willing to see it.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 12 September 2009

Letter to the leaders: health care reform

Sent this to President Obama, the legislative leadership and my Congressional representatives. It's something all of us who support national health care reform should do; we need to push back against the right-wing demagogues and their lies.
--------------
It might seem I would have little interest in supporting or funding national health care reform. I have good health care coverage coverage through my employer, in six years I will be eligible for Medicare, and my family income is about $200,000 so the sort of tax increases which might become necessary would hit me fairly significantly.

Far more important, however, I am a citizen who cares about his fellow Americans, tens of millions of whom lack health insurance, tens of millions more of whom lack truly adequate coverage. This is appalling. The United States is the richest country in the world, yet we are the only affluent nation which does not insure that its citizens have proper health care. The consequence is that most of our key health indicators compare unfavorably to those of other modern nations, and that translates out into shorter lives and lower quality of life for millions of Americans. We should be ashamed! Ironically, it also means that our national health care costs are significantly higher than in countries which provide a humane level of care.

We need health care reform. And a key part of the necessary reform is what is commonly being called the "public option." The public option will insure coverage at reasonable rates for all Americans, will bring health care costs down, will improve our quality of life, and will keep insurance plans competitive.

Of course, one must be concerned about costs. Yet good health care reform, which must include the public option, will go a long way towards constraining costs. Better health care, and especially more effective early intervention and preventative health care, will improve American productivity, making us an even richer nation ... with higher tax receipts. If funding cuts elsewhere need to be made, winding down our futile war in Afghanistan and accelerating our withdrawal from Iraq would provide billions in savings. And if higher taxes on the affluent are necessary, so be it; I am more than willing to see my tax bill go up if if means that all of my fellow citizens will have ready access to the health care they need.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 September 2009