.
They say you can’t go home again, but I’m about to prove them wrong for the umpteenth time: I’m heading for Nevada, Missouri, to visit my mother for a few days.
I do this about a dozen times a year now. Mother is eighty, and I worry about her. Not as much as I used to, however, because she now has a boyfriend, Bill, who takes her out to lunch every day and helps her run the few errands that occupy her time. And my brother lives with her. Even though he works long hours, I know that if anything were to happen, he would be there, eventually.
So, I really go back because I enjoy her company and because the visits are so pleasant. I don’t have to feel responsible for anything while I’m there, although I try to do the dishes a few times and help her some with the notebooks she is assembling about the lives of my father and the two brothers who never had families to collect their mementoes.
But I don’t go back to visit my hometown. I have almost no interest in Nevada. I didn’t have much when I lived there. I was always intent on getting old enough so that I could go to college and get out of there. That’s such a common thread running through so many teenagers’ lives.
Now I wish I had been less dismissive of the community activities that mark the passage of the years in a town like Nevada. I never participated in the Little Miss Bushwhacker Days contest; I never entered anything into the County Fair contests; I never even read the newspaper.
Part of that was because I had so few friends to draw me into such activities. I was always the odd duck, the girl everyone thought was stuck-up, when I was really only a peculiar sort of shy. As one of five children, I didn’t miss having friends much and so I never learned how to make them. I had my brothers and sisters to pal around with – at least until my older brother and sister went off to college. Then I was left with two brothers years behind me, who didn’t really want to have much to do with a sister.
So I have no friends there to catch up with. The most I do is ride around the square and try to remember which stores have closed and opened since the last time I was there. My husband actually does a better job of that. He is more observant than I am, and he remembers what he notices. So he tells me what has changed, and I say, “Really?” and nod like I’m interested.
But I do notice what has changed in Mother’s world, and I am interested in her news, even though so many of our conversations repeat themselves. How my sister, Sharon, doesn’t listen to her and acts like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. How Sharon’s sons are struggling with their finances and what Mother has done to help them out. What funny things the great-nieces and great-nephews have said recently and how they are doing in school or pre-school.
It’s comforting to know that some things never change, that home is still home and will be until Mother’s gone. At which point I won’t be able to go there any more.
-------------
While I'm in Nevada, I won't have access to e-mail, so no blog from me until Saturday.
.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Real Health Care Reform
.
We’ve heard a great deal lately about health care reform, but that isn’t what they’re really talking about. They’re talking about health care insurance reform. In other words, how do we get everyone covered by some form of health insurance so that they will have access to the health care system we already have?
Well, I’m not particularly in favor of that. I’d rather see us reform the health care system so that we can afford to give proper health care to everyone for far less money. Whether the health care insurance industry is involved, indeed, whether it even survives that reform, I don’t care. I want a system where a sick child can be taken to see a health care professional to make sure that the cold the child is suffering from isn’t pneumonia and doesn’t turn into pneumonia. And the same for the adult with bronchitis.
Lowering the cost of health insurance won’t get us to that point, because all health insurance involves co-pays and deductibles, which very poor people can’t afford. It does us no good to limit individual payments for a doctor’s visit to $25 each if the sick person can’t even afford a co-pay of $5.
Personally, I think the only reasonable route is to institute a system of free health clinics, run not by doctors but by nurse practitioners, in neighborhoods that need service, and supported directly by tax dollars. This is the backbone of the system in England, and it works pretty well for them.
The clinics act as a triage filter, treating the sniffles, even setting broken bones, but sending the pneumonias to a “real” doctor and the shattered ulnas to the emergency rooms. That frees the doctors from being overwhelmed by patients whom they don’t need to see and allows local hospitals to maintain emergency rooms for the good of people who face real medical emergencies.
I’ve grossly oversimplified this, of course, and I know that this basic idea would be far more difficult to implement than just renting storefronts and hiring nurse-practitioners, but I can’t think of any other system that really reforms the medical system we have today, which rations care to those who can afford to pay for it while encouraging doctors to prescribe unnecessary laboratory tests and computer imagings because the doctor gets a kickback – or even owns the lab or the machinery outright.
But the people in Washington are not talking about any such reform to the medical system. They’re just talking about reforming the way we pay for a system that is broken. In my opinion, that will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
.
We’ve heard a great deal lately about health care reform, but that isn’t what they’re really talking about. They’re talking about health care insurance reform. In other words, how do we get everyone covered by some form of health insurance so that they will have access to the health care system we already have?
Well, I’m not particularly in favor of that. I’d rather see us reform the health care system so that we can afford to give proper health care to everyone for far less money. Whether the health care insurance industry is involved, indeed, whether it even survives that reform, I don’t care. I want a system where a sick child can be taken to see a health care professional to make sure that the cold the child is suffering from isn’t pneumonia and doesn’t turn into pneumonia. And the same for the adult with bronchitis.
Lowering the cost of health insurance won’t get us to that point, because all health insurance involves co-pays and deductibles, which very poor people can’t afford. It does us no good to limit individual payments for a doctor’s visit to $25 each if the sick person can’t even afford a co-pay of $5.
Personally, I think the only reasonable route is to institute a system of free health clinics, run not by doctors but by nurse practitioners, in neighborhoods that need service, and supported directly by tax dollars. This is the backbone of the system in England, and it works pretty well for them.
The clinics act as a triage filter, treating the sniffles, even setting broken bones, but sending the pneumonias to a “real” doctor and the shattered ulnas to the emergency rooms. That frees the doctors from being overwhelmed by patients whom they don’t need to see and allows local hospitals to maintain emergency rooms for the good of people who face real medical emergencies.
I’ve grossly oversimplified this, of course, and I know that this basic idea would be far more difficult to implement than just renting storefronts and hiring nurse-practitioners, but I can’t think of any other system that really reforms the medical system we have today, which rations care to those who can afford to pay for it while encouraging doctors to prescribe unnecessary laboratory tests and computer imagings because the doctor gets a kickback – or even owns the lab or the machinery outright.
But the people in Washington are not talking about any such reform to the medical system. They’re just talking about reforming the way we pay for a system that is broken. In my opinion, that will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Transfer of Power
.
Watch what happens in Iran over the course of the next few days – and compare it to what happened in Florida in November and December 2000.
In the United States, a disputed election meant lawsuits and people poring over ballots with other people leaning over their shoulders. In Iran, a disputed election has alredy meant clashes between young people and the police. Here, we called about 30 people in a corridor a “riot.” There, the police have raised translucent shields and are chasing looters up and down the streets.
The peaceful transfer of power from one leader to another is one of the primary hallmarks of civilization. The methods developed in Britain and the United States have been copied all over the world. Britain arrived at its method after centuries of uprisings any time a ruler died or aroused the ire of the populace. We arrived at our method after only eight years of the failed Articles of Confederation and less than twenty years of the Continental Congress.
Only once did the election of a President cause armed conflict (and that might have been avoided had the South not forced the issue). This is a blessing we take for granted.
One half of this country will continue to believe that Albert Gore was cheated in 2000; the other half will continue to believe that election fraud was narrowly averted. In the next few days, we will see what Florida could have been if either half had adhered less to the rule of law and surrendered more to the passions of the moment.
.
Watch what happens in Iran over the course of the next few days – and compare it to what happened in Florida in November and December 2000.
In the United States, a disputed election meant lawsuits and people poring over ballots with other people leaning over their shoulders. In Iran, a disputed election has alredy meant clashes between young people and the police. Here, we called about 30 people in a corridor a “riot.” There, the police have raised translucent shields and are chasing looters up and down the streets.
The peaceful transfer of power from one leader to another is one of the primary hallmarks of civilization. The methods developed in Britain and the United States have been copied all over the world. Britain arrived at its method after centuries of uprisings any time a ruler died or aroused the ire of the populace. We arrived at our method after only eight years of the failed Articles of Confederation and less than twenty years of the Continental Congress.
Only once did the election of a President cause armed conflict (and that might have been avoided had the South not forced the issue). This is a blessing we take for granted.
One half of this country will continue to believe that Albert Gore was cheated in 2000; the other half will continue to believe that election fraud was narrowly averted. In the next few days, we will see what Florida could have been if either half had adhered less to the rule of law and surrendered more to the passions of the moment.
.
Friday, June 12, 2009
A New Couch?
.
We need a new couch.
We've needed a new couch for a long time. Years, even. In the past, we never had the money when we had the time to look, and vice versa. Now we have the money and we could easily find the time, but . . .
My husband works for a company that sells services to newspapers. The newspaper industry is dying. None of his company's customers appears to be in danger, but . . .
So we're holding off on buying that couch or making any other major investment until such time as the dust settles and we know where we are and what we'll need, to keep us where we want to be.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are doing what we're doing, and it isn't doing the economy any good.
That is the biggest irony of our economic situation: to get the economy out of its rut, we need to consume; to get our personal finances under control, we need to save.
Our household has decided to follow Isaac Newton's advice: moderation in all things.
We're going out to eat less, not making unnecessary trips in the car, using our ceiling fans more and leaving the thermostat at its energy-efficient, computer-controlled level more often. But at the same time, we're not switching to the store brand on items where brand means something to us, not haunting the thrift stores looking for bargains, not walking to the grocery store that is less that five blocks away (but on the other side of Tyler Road).
Whenever I have to make a financial decision, no matter how small, I find myself thinking of this balancing act. Should I save a few pennies or should I help the economy? It's kind of corny, but I believe, no, I know that the future of the country rests on all those little, everyday choices.
So what do you think? Should we buy that couch, after all?
.
We need a new couch.
We've needed a new couch for a long time. Years, even. In the past, we never had the money when we had the time to look, and vice versa. Now we have the money and we could easily find the time, but . . .
My husband works for a company that sells services to newspapers. The newspaper industry is dying. None of his company's customers appears to be in danger, but . . .
So we're holding off on buying that couch or making any other major investment until such time as the dust settles and we know where we are and what we'll need, to keep us where we want to be.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are doing what we're doing, and it isn't doing the economy any good.
That is the biggest irony of our economic situation: to get the economy out of its rut, we need to consume; to get our personal finances under control, we need to save.
Our household has decided to follow Isaac Newton's advice: moderation in all things.
We're going out to eat less, not making unnecessary trips in the car, using our ceiling fans more and leaving the thermostat at its energy-efficient, computer-controlled level more often. But at the same time, we're not switching to the store brand on items where brand means something to us, not haunting the thrift stores looking for bargains, not walking to the grocery store that is less that five blocks away (but on the other side of Tyler Road).
Whenever I have to make a financial decision, no matter how small, I find myself thinking of this balancing act. Should I save a few pennies or should I help the economy? It's kind of corny, but I believe, no, I know that the future of the country rests on all those little, everyday choices.
So what do you think? Should we buy that couch, after all?
.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Confronting the Hate
.
I have a nephew who was a Holocaust denier. May still be.
My sister's boy Eric was indoctrinated in that hatefulness by one of his high school teachers. My father tried to counteract it by taking him out to hear the stories of a friend who helped liberate one of the death camps. I don't think Eric was convinced. If he had been, I don't think my father would have told me the story.
I've never asked Eric about it. If he still holds those opinions, I don't want to know. I don't know him well, and I'm not sure I like him. But he's family, and I really don't want to have any reason to like him less. Besides, there's no point in being confrontational with someone I see at most twice a year -- is there?
My ambivalence probably mirrors the reaction of most of us to racial hatred. We don't want to know that our neighbor, our co-worker, our friend is a racist. So we shy away from discussing the issue until the other person has given us some sign of where they stand. Then we either relax or tighten up completely, depending. The result is that the quiet haters, the ones who give aid and comfort to the violent ones, are rarely confronted with the truth.
James von Brunn is one of the violent ones. He appears to be an equal-opportunity hater -- against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, and government employees. He isn't happy with the world as it is, and he is willing to take matters into his own hands to change it, no matter the cost -- to him or to others.
Haven't we seen enough of that lately? I wonder if he realizes that he is a comrade-in-arms of the suicide bombers who kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But fanatics rarely have true self-awareness.
Maybe I'll bring that up at Thanksgiving dinner this year.
.
I have a nephew who was a Holocaust denier. May still be.
My sister's boy Eric was indoctrinated in that hatefulness by one of his high school teachers. My father tried to counteract it by taking him out to hear the stories of a friend who helped liberate one of the death camps. I don't think Eric was convinced. If he had been, I don't think my father would have told me the story.
I've never asked Eric about it. If he still holds those opinions, I don't want to know. I don't know him well, and I'm not sure I like him. But he's family, and I really don't want to have any reason to like him less. Besides, there's no point in being confrontational with someone I see at most twice a year -- is there?
My ambivalence probably mirrors the reaction of most of us to racial hatred. We don't want to know that our neighbor, our co-worker, our friend is a racist. So we shy away from discussing the issue until the other person has given us some sign of where they stand. Then we either relax or tighten up completely, depending. The result is that the quiet haters, the ones who give aid and comfort to the violent ones, are rarely confronted with the truth.
James von Brunn is one of the violent ones. He appears to be an equal-opportunity hater -- against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, and government employees. He isn't happy with the world as it is, and he is willing to take matters into his own hands to change it, no matter the cost -- to him or to others.
Haven't we seen enough of that lately? I wonder if he realizes that he is a comrade-in-arms of the suicide bombers who kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But fanatics rarely have true self-awareness.
Maybe I'll bring that up at Thanksgiving dinner this year.
.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Political Dilemma
.
Last week, I began walking door-to-door in my precinct, and I finally met someone I have been hearing about all my political life: A Democrat registered as a Republican so that she can vote in Republican primaries.
I was told about such people when I first became active in Democratic politics in 1988 in Somerset County, New Jersey. Somerset County at that time was the third richest county in the country. It was home to estates owned by Jacqueline Onassis, the king of Morocco, and Malcolm Forbes, among others.
There had been no Democratic member of the County Board of Chosen Freeholders since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Most of the state legislators from the districts including part of the county were Republicans, and the two Democrats were anti-choice and fairly conservative. Both of them were replaced by Republicans during the time I was active.
In other words, the Republican candidate on the ballot in November was sure to be the winner of the race. The only voters who had a say in who would be their representative at the county or state level were the people who voted in the Republican primary. Many Democrats, we were told, registered as Republicans in order to vote in those primaries.
But I never met one, probably because I didn't do a lot of door-to-door canvassing. It was something everyone there pooh-poohed as old hat, no longer effective. The secret to winning elections at that level, they thought, was to send out more and better mailings, which meant more and better fundraising.
Obviously, many Democratic candidates here in Sedgwick County have proven them wrong. For example, in 2006, Terry McLachlan was out-spent by his opponent, but he walked his district, identified his voters, and mobilized them to turn out and vote. He won by 51 votes. Terry was ill during the 2008 election and couldn't walk as much. He lost by 52 votes. It is said that Raj Goyle walked his district three times in 2006 and he beat Bonnie Huy by a large margin.
But what to do about this woman who was registered as a Republican but voted Democratic? I will mark the information in my part of the database provided by the state party so that the eventual candidate in my district will know to treat her as a Democrat, but that begs a larger question. If there is a Republican primary in my state house or senate district, do I want her to vote for the candidate I think will be the better legislator or do I want her to vote for the candidate who will be easier for the Democratic candidate to beat in the general election?
In some cases, the answer to those questions will be the same person. The person who holds the opinions close to mine will be the person that Republican voters will be less invested in and therefore will be less likely to turn out for, meaning that high Democratic turnout will be able to beat low Republican turnout.
But in other cases, the opposite will be true. The person easier to beat will be the more conservative candidate, because he or she is too far "out there" and will turn off all but the most ardent Republicans. A good example would be a candidate from the John Birch Society. The other candidate, however, although still staunchly conservative, might make decisions from a perspective closer to the middle, but not close enough to be decisions I want to see coming from my legislator.
Do I want her to vote for the John Bircher, giving the Democratic candidate a better chance of winning? Or do I want her to vote for the more rational conservative, keeping the John Bircher out of the running but making it more difficult for the Democratic candidate to win?
In other words, do I want her to vote like a moderate Republican or like a Democratic spoiler? I don't know, which is one reason I'm not a registered Republican.
What would you do?
.
Last week, I began walking door-to-door in my precinct, and I finally met someone I have been hearing about all my political life: A Democrat registered as a Republican so that she can vote in Republican primaries.
I was told about such people when I first became active in Democratic politics in 1988 in Somerset County, New Jersey. Somerset County at that time was the third richest county in the country. It was home to estates owned by Jacqueline Onassis, the king of Morocco, and Malcolm Forbes, among others.
There had been no Democratic member of the County Board of Chosen Freeholders since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Most of the state legislators from the districts including part of the county were Republicans, and the two Democrats were anti-choice and fairly conservative. Both of them were replaced by Republicans during the time I was active.
In other words, the Republican candidate on the ballot in November was sure to be the winner of the race. The only voters who had a say in who would be their representative at the county or state level were the people who voted in the Republican primary. Many Democrats, we were told, registered as Republicans in order to vote in those primaries.
But I never met one, probably because I didn't do a lot of door-to-door canvassing. It was something everyone there pooh-poohed as old hat, no longer effective. The secret to winning elections at that level, they thought, was to send out more and better mailings, which meant more and better fundraising.
Obviously, many Democratic candidates here in Sedgwick County have proven them wrong. For example, in 2006, Terry McLachlan was out-spent by his opponent, but he walked his district, identified his voters, and mobilized them to turn out and vote. He won by 51 votes. Terry was ill during the 2008 election and couldn't walk as much. He lost by 52 votes. It is said that Raj Goyle walked his district three times in 2006 and he beat Bonnie Huy by a large margin.
But what to do about this woman who was registered as a Republican but voted Democratic? I will mark the information in my part of the database provided by the state party so that the eventual candidate in my district will know to treat her as a Democrat, but that begs a larger question. If there is a Republican primary in my state house or senate district, do I want her to vote for the candidate I think will be the better legislator or do I want her to vote for the candidate who will be easier for the Democratic candidate to beat in the general election?
In some cases, the answer to those questions will be the same person. The person who holds the opinions close to mine will be the person that Republican voters will be less invested in and therefore will be less likely to turn out for, meaning that high Democratic turnout will be able to beat low Republican turnout.
But in other cases, the opposite will be true. The person easier to beat will be the more conservative candidate, because he or she is too far "out there" and will turn off all but the most ardent Republicans. A good example would be a candidate from the John Birch Society. The other candidate, however, although still staunchly conservative, might make decisions from a perspective closer to the middle, but not close enough to be decisions I want to see coming from my legislator.
Do I want her to vote for the John Bircher, giving the Democratic candidate a better chance of winning? Or do I want her to vote for the more rational conservative, keeping the John Bircher out of the running but making it more difficult for the Democratic candidate to win?
In other words, do I want her to vote like a moderate Republican or like a Democratic spoiler? I don't know, which is one reason I'm not a registered Republican.
What would you do?
.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Letters and Comments
.
There were a couple of nasty letters and at least one nasty comment about religion and the abortion issue in yesterday’s paper that I can’t resist responding to.
The first letter asked “Who really killed George Tiller?” and proceeded to lay the blame everywhere but where it belonged. The pro-choice movement did not kill Dr. Tiller. The anti-choice movement did. I am not saying that Operation Rescue gave the killer actual aid in terms of buying him a gun or helping to buy the gas that got him to Wichita.
But I am saying that the constant drumbeat from so many in that faction that abortion is murder and that anyone performing abortions is a murderer and that murderers should be executed and that if the government won’t execute them, then private citizens should, provided the environment that egged on the likes of Scott Roeder to do more than picket outside clinics. Don’t get me wrong, however: the killer is the one who killed Dr. Tiller and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.
The second letter was in support of the National Day of Prayer and against the lawsuit that has been filed protesting that the government sponsoring such an event is a step too far over the wall separating church and state. The writer says “Atheists do not have to pray if they don’t want to and their rights should not take priority over the rights of those who do pray and follow God’s way.”
This is inside out. If the rights of atheists should not take priority, then why should the rights of the religious take priority? There is no right to hold a national day when the government urges everyone to pray. The government’s endorsement of such a day does not mean that the day cannot take place. But the government’s endorsement of such a day does mean that atheists or other non-Christians are subjected to the prayers of the Christian religion. And don’t tell me that it's not just a day of Christian prayer, that Jews and Muslims are urged to pray in their way. When was the last time you saw a non-Christian leading any of these groups in prayer?
This is like the canard that prayer is no longer allowed in schools. The proponents of school prayer are not satisfied with the right of each student to say a quiet prayer before lunch or an algebra test. They want prayer broadcast over the school’s public address system so that every child is forced to say a particular prayer at a particular time. That is not freedom of religion. That is indoctrination.
Finally, there is the caller who says, “I am tired of all the Christians being bashed because of the killing of Tiller. It had nothing to do with the Christians. It was all from the devil.”
Have you heard any commentator bashing all Christians for the murder of Dr. Tiller? I have not. Even the ones who talk about the responsibility of the extremists who advocate murder as political free speech are careful to say that these are not the views of all Christians or all anti-choice people. In fact, I think the discourse over this issue has been remarkably free of vitriol.
I am not someone who sings in the choir every Sunday, but I do believe that everyone has the right to believe as they see fit. I do not hold ardent Christians in contempt. Why do they seem determined to hold me so? People who truly live by the example of Christ are to be admired and encouraged. But people who advocate murder in the name of God are to be watched carefully and punished when their actions step over that line.
And that’s all I’m going to say about that – at least for today.
.
There were a couple of nasty letters and at least one nasty comment about religion and the abortion issue in yesterday’s paper that I can’t resist responding to.
The first letter asked “Who really killed George Tiller?” and proceeded to lay the blame everywhere but where it belonged. The pro-choice movement did not kill Dr. Tiller. The anti-choice movement did. I am not saying that Operation Rescue gave the killer actual aid in terms of buying him a gun or helping to buy the gas that got him to Wichita.
But I am saying that the constant drumbeat from so many in that faction that abortion is murder and that anyone performing abortions is a murderer and that murderers should be executed and that if the government won’t execute them, then private citizens should, provided the environment that egged on the likes of Scott Roeder to do more than picket outside clinics. Don’t get me wrong, however: the killer is the one who killed Dr. Tiller and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.
The second letter was in support of the National Day of Prayer and against the lawsuit that has been filed protesting that the government sponsoring such an event is a step too far over the wall separating church and state. The writer says “Atheists do not have to pray if they don’t want to and their rights should not take priority over the rights of those who do pray and follow God’s way.”
This is inside out. If the rights of atheists should not take priority, then why should the rights of the religious take priority? There is no right to hold a national day when the government urges everyone to pray. The government’s endorsement of such a day does not mean that the day cannot take place. But the government’s endorsement of such a day does mean that atheists or other non-Christians are subjected to the prayers of the Christian religion. And don’t tell me that it's not just a day of Christian prayer, that Jews and Muslims are urged to pray in their way. When was the last time you saw a non-Christian leading any of these groups in prayer?
This is like the canard that prayer is no longer allowed in schools. The proponents of school prayer are not satisfied with the right of each student to say a quiet prayer before lunch or an algebra test. They want prayer broadcast over the school’s public address system so that every child is forced to say a particular prayer at a particular time. That is not freedom of religion. That is indoctrination.
Finally, there is the caller who says, “I am tired of all the Christians being bashed because of the killing of Tiller. It had nothing to do with the Christians. It was all from the devil.”
Have you heard any commentator bashing all Christians for the murder of Dr. Tiller? I have not. Even the ones who talk about the responsibility of the extremists who advocate murder as political free speech are careful to say that these are not the views of all Christians or all anti-choice people. In fact, I think the discourse over this issue has been remarkably free of vitriol.
I am not someone who sings in the choir every Sunday, but I do believe that everyone has the right to believe as they see fit. I do not hold ardent Christians in contempt. Why do they seem determined to hold me so? People who truly live by the example of Christ are to be admired and encouraged. But people who advocate murder in the name of God are to be watched carefully and punished when their actions step over that line.
And that’s all I’m going to say about that – at least for today.
.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Ultimate Choice
.
“I do not want – and I am sure the vast majority of Americans will agree with me – my family's lives put in jeopardy because some half-wit in government thinks that is what our Constitution requires. Such a person should be instantly fired.”
-- rick0101
That is a quote from a comment on a news story about Guantanamo and torture. It fairly leaped off the page. It is perhaps the clearest statement I’ve read of the quandary that is the American political scene today.
Do we protect our loved ones first and foremost, or do we protect the ideals that make our country great?
Our country was founded on some pretty simple ideas. We sum them up in some pretty simple phrases: All men are created equal. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Habeas Corpus. Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press. There are people who claim that the abrogation of any of these tenets will mean the end of civilization as we know it.
That’s until there is any credible threat to them or their families.
Perhaps that old saw that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested is really true. Tip O’Neill, after all, said that all politics are local. What’s more local than your child’s welfare?
When does the good of everyone trump the good of any one person? I suspect that we all have a different answer. And I also suspect that we won’t really know the answer until we are in a position where we’ll really need it.
.
“I do not want – and I am sure the vast majority of Americans will agree with me – my family's lives put in jeopardy because some half-wit in government thinks that is what our Constitution requires. Such a person should be instantly fired.”
-- rick0101
That is a quote from a comment on a news story about Guantanamo and torture. It fairly leaped off the page. It is perhaps the clearest statement I’ve read of the quandary that is the American political scene today.
Do we protect our loved ones first and foremost, or do we protect the ideals that make our country great?
Our country was founded on some pretty simple ideas. We sum them up in some pretty simple phrases: All men are created equal. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Habeas Corpus. Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press. There are people who claim that the abrogation of any of these tenets will mean the end of civilization as we know it.
That’s until there is any credible threat to them or their families.
Perhaps that old saw that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested is really true. Tip O’Neill, after all, said that all politics are local. What’s more local than your child’s welfare?
When does the good of everyone trump the good of any one person? I suspect that we all have a different answer. And I also suspect that we won’t really know the answer until we are in a position where we’ll really need it.
.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Spaghetti Thoughts
.
I spent the day tidying up my office. I organized the piles into folders, coiled some of the cords running between the various peripherals on my desktop, and recycled anything I could. I wish I could do as much for the swirling thoughts in my head. But my mental spaghetti cannot be untangled so easily.
I worry that I will give in to the despair that follows a senseless act of extremism, the sense that no matter how hard my cohorts and I struggle against adversity, there’s always a nut out there poised to do more than shoot down our arguments. The longer I am involved in politics, the more it seems that issues are never put to rest. We wrangle endlessly over the same ideas with merely incremental results.
The current campaign against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is a case in point. As the Senators dance the minuet of the confirmation process, the usual suspects are taking the usual positions and making the usual comments. All that has changed is the methods used as the Republicans back away from their “up or down vote” position and find nice words to say about the filibusters they decried during the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito.
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking. That Rush Limbaugh would have the nerve to call anyone else a racist leaves me gasping. My husband likes to say that Republicans engage in political projection, accusing Democrats of bad intentions because that is how the Republicans would act if they were in the Democrats’ position.
I think they just engage in selective memory. Dick Cheney’s recent assertion that George Tenet is to blame for the mistaken impression that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda were allies is a good example of this. George Tenet did not cherry-pick intelligence to back up a belief he couldn’t bear to give up. Nor did he go on news show after news show to state categorically that there was such a connection.
Someone once asked me why I am a Democrat. I thought for a moment, and then replied, “Because Democrats care.” I wasn’t just thinking about Social Security, affirmative action, and welfare. I was thinking that the Democrats I have known have been concerned that what they say is both true and accurate. We not only know that life is full of nuances; we are determined to help others understand those nuances.
It is very difficult for the Democrats I know to limit themselves to sound bites and daily messages. They want what they say to make sense. They are not cynical about skirting the real story in order to tell the story they think will get them quoted in the newspapers and on TV. (This is one reason we sometimes have so much trouble winning elections.)
We don’t want to put out twisted statements that, like spaghetti, arrive tangled on the table.
.
I spent the day tidying up my office. I organized the piles into folders, coiled some of the cords running between the various peripherals on my desktop, and recycled anything I could. I wish I could do as much for the swirling thoughts in my head. But my mental spaghetti cannot be untangled so easily.
I worry that I will give in to the despair that follows a senseless act of extremism, the sense that no matter how hard my cohorts and I struggle against adversity, there’s always a nut out there poised to do more than shoot down our arguments. The longer I am involved in politics, the more it seems that issues are never put to rest. We wrangle endlessly over the same ideas with merely incremental results.
The current campaign against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is a case in point. As the Senators dance the minuet of the confirmation process, the usual suspects are taking the usual positions and making the usual comments. All that has changed is the methods used as the Republicans back away from their “up or down vote” position and find nice words to say about the filibusters they decried during the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito.
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking. That Rush Limbaugh would have the nerve to call anyone else a racist leaves me gasping. My husband likes to say that Republicans engage in political projection, accusing Democrats of bad intentions because that is how the Republicans would act if they were in the Democrats’ position.
I think they just engage in selective memory. Dick Cheney’s recent assertion that George Tenet is to blame for the mistaken impression that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda were allies is a good example of this. George Tenet did not cherry-pick intelligence to back up a belief he couldn’t bear to give up. Nor did he go on news show after news show to state categorically that there was such a connection.
Someone once asked me why I am a Democrat. I thought for a moment, and then replied, “Because Democrats care.” I wasn’t just thinking about Social Security, affirmative action, and welfare. I was thinking that the Democrats I have known have been concerned that what they say is both true and accurate. We not only know that life is full of nuances; we are determined to help others understand those nuances.
It is very difficult for the Democrats I know to limit themselves to sound bites and daily messages. They want what they say to make sense. They are not cynical about skirting the real story in order to tell the story they think will get them quoted in the newspapers and on TV. (This is one reason we sometimes have so much trouble winning elections.)
We don’t want to put out twisted statements that, like spaghetti, arrive tangled on the table.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)