Do any of us ever listen to what we are saying? Do any of us even know what we are hearing? All too often, the answer is: NO. In this Age of Information—an age of massive amounts of instant information—do we stop to think about the meaning of words?
Just yesterday, I heard a politician vow to his listeners that he would use the line item veto if he were president, and many in the crowd roared and clapped enthusiastically. That man is either ignorant of recent history or simply duping his audience. The Supreme Court answered that one once and for all 12 years ago. (In Clinton v. City of New York, the court ruled 6-3 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated :”the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution” because it impermissibly gave the President power “to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.”) While many governors do have the power of the line item veto as their state constitutions allow, the U. S. Constitution does not. It is quite explicit about disallowing the executive branch to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. Furthermore, many who cry out for the line item veto also want a weaker executive while demanding a power for him that would give more muscle to the office. Reread Articles I and II of the U. S. Constitution. It is quite clear whose powers belong to whom.
Now let’s talk about another pundit/political candidate bugaboo: those earmarks made famous by (R-Alaska) Senator Ted Stevens’ “Bridge to No Where.” Would I like it better if there were fewer earmarks? Yes, but am I happy when my own Senators and U. S. Representative bring home money to my state for a much needed bridge, grant, or program? You bet! That’s why I voted for them. Naturally, every other state’s bacon is pork. Of course that which comes to my own state is necessary and worthy. Isn’t that what most of us think? We elect men and women to go to Washington to intercede on our state’s behalf and expect those in congress to be proactive in seeing that our state gets what it wants and needs.
Opposing politicians of both parties like to rant and rave over the length of the other party’s bill, as if shorter bills would be the cure-all for all of our problems. Bills are written to anticipate everything that may come up as a result of their passage and to anticipate and close every loop hole possible. I’ve worked with Kentucky Youth Assembly where students propose and write laws. This is no easy process and takes much research, all of which must be contained or referenced within the proposed law. If a bill that encompasses many aspects is over a thousand pages long, think how long the directions were for assembling a child’s bike and compare the two in their scope and magnitude.
When a decision is rendered in the Supreme Court, and we disagree with their interpretation, then the Court is being an “activist court.” What does that even mean? The Supreme Court admittedly has sent down decisions I have found abhorrent from time to time, decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010, for example. But, the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government, a fact many seem to forget. The Court is there to interpret the laws as the justices see fit, according to what is written in the U. S. Constitution. Those who want “originalists” for justices surely don’t understand what that means. Some of the Constitution as originally written would value people of color as 3/5 of a person and make slavery legal (Article I Section ii). This same Article and Section also allows state legislatures—not the voters--to choose U. S. Senators. That was the original idea. Do originalists still want the ballot open only to males and property owners? Women did not get the vote until 1920 with the 19th Amendment. The Constitution is a beautiful doctrine, but it was written in 18th century America and ratified in 1788. Our Founding Fathers had the vision to know that our laws would have to be elastic enough to allow for changes through time. Specifically, Article I, Section viii, clause 8, sometimes called the “Elastic Clause,” states that “The Congress shall have Power—To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to execute the powers given to Congress. “Necessary and proper” allows for contingencies in an America and a period of time that the founders could never even imagine, but an America for which they prepared nonetheless.
While a few in the Tea Party reference the Boston Tea Party, they forget that the Tea Party occurred before the Constitution was ever written; furthermore, they were protesting paying a tax when they had no representatives in parliament. The Tea Party was about the lack of representation, not the specific paying of taxes. When the Constitution was penned, Article I, Section ii states that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union….” The Founders permitted taxation; therefore, it is not unconstitutional. Gripe about the amount you pay, but remember that taxation by the federal government is explicitly constitutional and so stated in the very first Article of the U. S. Constitution, not as an afterthought.
This is a large and complex country, and our problems are myriad and varied. There are no simple “sound bite” answers, and if that is all you are hearing, I suggest you stop to think for a moment about the probability of that simple solution’s becoming a reality. As citizens, it is our own responsibility to check the truth of what we see, read, and hear. Just because we read it in an e-mail does not make it true. Be careful when you hear some TV pundit make an allegation and then end it with a question. Example: Some say that aliens are now running the military. Is it true? Or be careful when you yourself say “I heard that….” if you are not absolutely certain of your own facts.
Yes, we live in the Age of Information. We network like meth head spiders. We tweet and Face Book, e-mail and text, talk and talk and chat and chat. But do we ever research anything? Not often enough. Maybe it’s time we did.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Fear and Loathing in the U. S. A.
Fear and Hate are a duo with a history as long as humans have peopled the planet. It is that fear of The Other, of those who look different from us, who speak a different language than we do, who practice customs or religions unfamiliar to ours that make us uncomfortable, suspicious, and afraid. It has been so as long as our country has existed, and sadly, still is.
I was naïve, I know, to believe that Americans were on the road to recovery from our ugly past, a past that included: forcing Native Americans onto the Trail of Tears and into reservations on worthless land; of interning Japanese Americans during World War II, even though they had been born here and were citizens of this country; of enslaving African Americans early in our history and then forcing them into economic and social servitude even after the Civil War.
I was rosy-eyed to a fault when I truly believed that the Jim Crow Era would end the moment people heard Martin Luther King’s Dream Speech. And I now know that I was a fool to believe that the election of a black president in my lifetime meant that we had finally come to terms with who were meant to be as a nation, a nation where anyone’s son or daughter could eventually grow up to be president. I hear racial slurs about our president and see signs with racial epithets and depictions not seen in public since the 1960’s except at a Klan or skin-head rally. Disagree with his policies if his views are contrary to yours, but do it without demeaning his parentage or questioning his citizenry. Those who insist that he is an Other, a man illegally holding our highest office because he wasn’t born here--all evidence to the contrary—must be hysterical or hate-filled.
I have lost track of how many groups have been labeled with epithets and regarded as inferior in our history, many of whom continue to be, even in the 21st century: Native Americans, Jews, African Americans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Muslims, women, gays and lesbians, people who are mentally challenged, just to name a few.
The United States of America was an idea, inspired by enlightened ideals. Men penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those uttering uplifting phrases like “all men are created equal,” owned slaves and accepted that all free women were little more than chattel. And yet they wrote that we were forming “a more perfect union.” Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we closer than we have been? Yes. Should we continue to strive for that ideal? Absolutely yes.
Is it all right for all of us to take our eyes off the majesty of the promise in our founding documents? Shouldn’t all of us keep our eyes on that prize? More than ever, each of us has to try harder to treat others as we would have them treat us. Instead of listening to those who spew hatred, turn away and perform a random act of kindness. Try to transform fear of The Other into trying to understand those who seem different and unlike you.
And yes, I know how sappy this sounds, how all unicorns and puppies I seem. I realize that there is plenty of ugly out there and that sociopaths, fanatics, and truly amoral and immoral people exist. But I also know that not all Muslims are al-Qaida, that all African American males are not gang bangers, that all illegals are not part of the Mexican drug cartel, that all strong women are not femi-Nazis, that all gays and lesbians are not a threat to hetero-sexual marriage.
If all of us would just limit our application of that broad brush with which we paint those who are different from us, it would be a beginning. Remember, for every travesty with which you accuse one of “Them,” there is someone of your ilk who has done the same or worse.
I was naïve, I know, to believe that Americans were on the road to recovery from our ugly past, a past that included: forcing Native Americans onto the Trail of Tears and into reservations on worthless land; of interning Japanese Americans during World War II, even though they had been born here and were citizens of this country; of enslaving African Americans early in our history and then forcing them into economic and social servitude even after the Civil War.
I was rosy-eyed to a fault when I truly believed that the Jim Crow Era would end the moment people heard Martin Luther King’s Dream Speech. And I now know that I was a fool to believe that the election of a black president in my lifetime meant that we had finally come to terms with who were meant to be as a nation, a nation where anyone’s son or daughter could eventually grow up to be president. I hear racial slurs about our president and see signs with racial epithets and depictions not seen in public since the 1960’s except at a Klan or skin-head rally. Disagree with his policies if his views are contrary to yours, but do it without demeaning his parentage or questioning his citizenry. Those who insist that he is an Other, a man illegally holding our highest office because he wasn’t born here--all evidence to the contrary—must be hysterical or hate-filled.
I have lost track of how many groups have been labeled with epithets and regarded as inferior in our history, many of whom continue to be, even in the 21st century: Native Americans, Jews, African Americans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Muslims, women, gays and lesbians, people who are mentally challenged, just to name a few.
The United States of America was an idea, inspired by enlightened ideals. Men penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those uttering uplifting phrases like “all men are created equal,” owned slaves and accepted that all free women were little more than chattel. And yet they wrote that we were forming “a more perfect union.” Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we closer than we have been? Yes. Should we continue to strive for that ideal? Absolutely yes.
Is it all right for all of us to take our eyes off the majesty of the promise in our founding documents? Shouldn’t all of us keep our eyes on that prize? More than ever, each of us has to try harder to treat others as we would have them treat us. Instead of listening to those who spew hatred, turn away and perform a random act of kindness. Try to transform fear of The Other into trying to understand those who seem different and unlike you.
And yes, I know how sappy this sounds, how all unicorns and puppies I seem. I realize that there is plenty of ugly out there and that sociopaths, fanatics, and truly amoral and immoral people exist. But I also know that not all Muslims are al-Qaida, that all African American males are not gang bangers, that all illegals are not part of the Mexican drug cartel, that all strong women are not femi-Nazis, that all gays and lesbians are not a threat to hetero-sexual marriage.
If all of us would just limit our application of that broad brush with which we paint those who are different from us, it would be a beginning. Remember, for every travesty with which you accuse one of “Them,” there is someone of your ilk who has done the same or worse.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Has Hysteria Obfuscated the True Meaning of "Freedom of Religion"?
When this country was first conceived—for it was conceived less as a physical state and more as an idea of what a good country could be—the Founding Fathers well remembered the history of Western Europe in general and British history in particular. They had learned a lesson from history, a rare occurrence indeed as most often, the errors of history are endlessly repeated. What had they learned? Religious intolerance or dominance led to wars, both foreign and domestic. Persecution became legitimized under the guise of religion. Many suffered and many died because others believed that they had God on their side.
It is no surprise then that the First Amendment not only includes Freedom of Religion but also begins with it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
What then are we to make of all of the concern over where a mosque or Muslim cultural center may be built? Are we a Christian nation as some proclaim? Our Founding Fathers were quite specific when saying that we are not. Even though the vast majority of early American settlers were Christian, the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee that the majority belief could not deny the beliefs of the minority. In one of our first treaties as a new nation, a treaty written during the presidency of George Washington and signed during the presidency of John Adams, this nation’s earliest leaders gave no doubt as to how they saw the role of religion in American politics. Please note the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796.
“Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers….
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen*; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan* nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries...."
“Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796"
(*Mussulmen”—This is how non-Muslims referred to Muslims at this time.
“Mohametan nations”—Nations where the citizens followed the teachings of Muhammad.)
I, too, have a reasonable fear of religious extremists, those who murder others in the name of religion with the surety that God is pleased with their actions. The followers of Osama bin Laden justified their actions with the belief that Allah would reward them in Heaven and because Allah had commanded them to kill infidels—anyone not sharing their belief system. Yes, these were murderous Islamic extremists. But not all Muslims are like Al Qaida. Let us not forget that over 50 of those who died when the terrorists flew planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on the passenger-aborted mission to fly into the White House were peaceful followers of Islam. Muslims were among first responders; they were working in the Pentagon and in the World Trade Center; they were passengers on those planes. The victims of 9/11 included some who practiced a far different Islam than that of the 9/11 attacking extremists.
Proponents of religious views who believe that God is telling them that they are members of His army and that they must kill in His name are not restricted to Islam. Let us not forget the myriads of people who were killed in the name of Christianity from the Crusades to the Inquisition to a Right to Life believer who murdered a doctor in his church. Let us not forget the thousands dying today because they are Sunni rather than Shi’ite Muslims or Arabs rather than Jews. Need I go on? I would venture to say that more have died in the name of religion than almost anything else. It is remarkable that we now hear people ginning up hatred in the name of religion be they Muslim or Christian or any other religion. Is it not absurd that people throughout history have killed while firmly believing that God was on their side and their side only? Bob Dylan makes this point so eloquently in one of his songs, “With God on Their Side.”
“The Second World War came to an end
We forgave the Germans and then we were friends
Though they murdered six million in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side” www.songlyrics.com
Or, for a more revered voice, I give you Thomas Jefferson’s views on the same subject:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” ---Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
If we allow ourselves to proclaim that we fervently believe that the moderate Imam who wants to build a mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero may do so legally but decry their doing so in an attempt to get them to build it somewhere else, do we really believe in Freedom of Religion? How close is too close? If I am a Jew, may I decide how close a Christian church may be built next to me? Unless we want to allow the murderous 9/11 attackers to win in the end, we have to remember who we are and what we believe. Al Qaida well knew that they could not bring the entire U. S. to its knees by attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the White House, had they been successful in that attempt. What they hoped—and what they now may see happening--is that our fear of them—the other—would cause us to destroy ourselves from within through fear.
Edward R. Murrow proclaimed while going after Eugene McCarthy’s campaign of labeling people communist sympathizers or “fellow travelers’: “We are not descended from fearful men.”
Throughout much of our history, Americans have not been a fearful people. We fought the British to become a nation and again to remain a nation. Pioneers crossed wide rivers and steep mountains, going deeply into unknown territory in order to make us a nation spanning from sea to shining sea. We sent men to the moon because we believed that we could. Why are we now cowering because a mosque may be built near Ground Zero? What message are we sending to our Muslim allies? To Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait? What message are we sending to law abiding American citizens who happen to practice Islam? What are we saying to those who have seen America as the haven for religious tolerance? Have we become a people so fearful that we cannot allow our first right in the Bill of Rights to be upheld?
Thomas Jefferson may have said it best when he referenced what they meant by the wording of the First Amendment:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Those words leave no wiggle room as to what those words mean in the First Amendment. Let us not allow fear to obfuscate them now.
More importantly, let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin: “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
It is no surprise then that the First Amendment not only includes Freedom of Religion but also begins with it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
What then are we to make of all of the concern over where a mosque or Muslim cultural center may be built? Are we a Christian nation as some proclaim? Our Founding Fathers were quite specific when saying that we are not. Even though the vast majority of early American settlers were Christian, the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee that the majority belief could not deny the beliefs of the minority. In one of our first treaties as a new nation, a treaty written during the presidency of George Washington and signed during the presidency of John Adams, this nation’s earliest leaders gave no doubt as to how they saw the role of religion in American politics. Please note the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796.
“Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers….
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen*; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan* nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries...."
“Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796"
(*Mussulmen”—This is how non-Muslims referred to Muslims at this time.
“Mohametan nations”—Nations where the citizens followed the teachings of Muhammad.)
I, too, have a reasonable fear of religious extremists, those who murder others in the name of religion with the surety that God is pleased with their actions. The followers of Osama bin Laden justified their actions with the belief that Allah would reward them in Heaven and because Allah had commanded them to kill infidels—anyone not sharing their belief system. Yes, these were murderous Islamic extremists. But not all Muslims are like Al Qaida. Let us not forget that over 50 of those who died when the terrorists flew planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on the passenger-aborted mission to fly into the White House were peaceful followers of Islam. Muslims were among first responders; they were working in the Pentagon and in the World Trade Center; they were passengers on those planes. The victims of 9/11 included some who practiced a far different Islam than that of the 9/11 attacking extremists.
Proponents of religious views who believe that God is telling them that they are members of His army and that they must kill in His name are not restricted to Islam. Let us not forget the myriads of people who were killed in the name of Christianity from the Crusades to the Inquisition to a Right to Life believer who murdered a doctor in his church. Let us not forget the thousands dying today because they are Sunni rather than Shi’ite Muslims or Arabs rather than Jews. Need I go on? I would venture to say that more have died in the name of religion than almost anything else. It is remarkable that we now hear people ginning up hatred in the name of religion be they Muslim or Christian or any other religion. Is it not absurd that people throughout history have killed while firmly believing that God was on their side and their side only? Bob Dylan makes this point so eloquently in one of his songs, “With God on Their Side.”
“The Second World War came to an end
We forgave the Germans and then we were friends
Though they murdered six million in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side” www.songlyrics.com
Or, for a more revered voice, I give you Thomas Jefferson’s views on the same subject:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” ---Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
If we allow ourselves to proclaim that we fervently believe that the moderate Imam who wants to build a mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero may do so legally but decry their doing so in an attempt to get them to build it somewhere else, do we really believe in Freedom of Religion? How close is too close? If I am a Jew, may I decide how close a Christian church may be built next to me? Unless we want to allow the murderous 9/11 attackers to win in the end, we have to remember who we are and what we believe. Al Qaida well knew that they could not bring the entire U. S. to its knees by attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the White House, had they been successful in that attempt. What they hoped—and what they now may see happening--is that our fear of them—the other—would cause us to destroy ourselves from within through fear.
Edward R. Murrow proclaimed while going after Eugene McCarthy’s campaign of labeling people communist sympathizers or “fellow travelers’: “We are not descended from fearful men.”
Throughout much of our history, Americans have not been a fearful people. We fought the British to become a nation and again to remain a nation. Pioneers crossed wide rivers and steep mountains, going deeply into unknown territory in order to make us a nation spanning from sea to shining sea. We sent men to the moon because we believed that we could. Why are we now cowering because a mosque may be built near Ground Zero? What message are we sending to our Muslim allies? To Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait? What message are we sending to law abiding American citizens who happen to practice Islam? What are we saying to those who have seen America as the haven for religious tolerance? Have we become a people so fearful that we cannot allow our first right in the Bill of Rights to be upheld?
Thomas Jefferson may have said it best when he referenced what they meant by the wording of the First Amendment:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Those words leave no wiggle room as to what those words mean in the First Amendment. Let us not allow fear to obfuscate them now.
More importantly, let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin: “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Drill Baby Drill? But What's the Real Cost of Off-Shore Drilling?
It is absurd to call what‘s happening in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the explosion and collapse of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig an “oil spill.” This is no spill. It is an oil gusher. This mess is destined to make the Exxon Valdeze oil spill of 1989 pale in comparison. And in case you’ve forgotten about that mess, people can dig down a foot or so on the Alaska shore in the spill’s vicinity and still find oil. What did we learn from that environmental disaster? Evidently, not so much.
If any of you witnessed the Congressional hearing featuring See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, you didn’t miss anything if you were looking for answers. Those CEO’s sounded like my kids when they were all younger. “It wasn’t me. He did it.” “I didn’t do it. He did.” It was disgusting. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing well-heeled CEO’s from this industry or Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banking mess’s cohorts sit at a hearing and say, “It wasn’t my fault. And besides, stuff happens.” It makes me want to run screaming into the wilderness.
On May 3, it was reported that at least 2,500 square miles of ocean was covered in this oil, and it is not getting any smaller since it continues to flood out thousands of barrels a day. Yesterday, a BP spokesman reported that the new siphon hose was working. Well whoopee! He said they were able to capture about 1000 barrels a day. How lovely since at least 50,000 barrels are gushing out into the Gulf each and every day. I suppose it is nice to know a siphon hose works better than a huge dome or a flipping top hat. But hey, the junk shot may work. Really? It sounds like third graders are in a room, brainstorming how one might stop up an underwater oil volcano. And besides, BP’s CEO announced that he was sure that the “environmental impact will be very, very modest ” (05/19/2010 on BBC news). When this same company wanted to do this deep-water drilling in the Gulf in the first place, BP assured all officials that they knew how to prevent any possible damages from such drilling, and that they didn’t expect any problems. As far as I’m concerned, any assurances from BP about anything should be taken with a grain of salt.
In spite of that siphon hose's marginal success, as of May 15 Pelican, a marine research vessel in the Gulf, found shocking amounts of oil beneath the water’s surface. These oil plumes are around 10 miles long, 5 miles wide, and 300 feet thick. This massive oil mass is severely lowering the oxygen in areas around these plumes which will most surely result in massive dead zones on the ocean’s floor. And yes, fish need oxygen. That’s what those gills are for. I actually heard someone ask, “What difference does it make if there’s no oxygen? It’s water, isn’t it?” Obviously, he flunked elementary school science.
As of today, May 19, an area the size of the state of PA is off limits for fishing in the Gulf. Senator Bill Nelson of FL just noted that strong southerly winds have already pushed a string of this oil into the Loop Current and that it is expected to reach the shores of Key West in 5 days and Miami beaches in 10.
Gulf shore community's economies depend upon the food and recreational fishing industries as well as tourism. This is no “modest” impact, and I’m pretty sure BP knows that. They have made decisions about their own bottom line, and so they can pay for the mess they made. The Senate currently has a bill to raise the liability of oil companies to $10 billion since the last cap was set in the 1970’s. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (R Alaska) put a hold on it for a couple days. Now James Inhofe (R Oklahoma) has a hold on it because he fears the size of this cap would prevent “Mom and Pop” companies from going into the oil drilling business because they couldn’t afford to pay this cap. If they can’t afford to clean up the possible messes of their business, they shouldn’t go into that business. Other businesses have to have the insurance they need to do that business, don't they? Does Inhoff think you and I should shoulder disaster costs because Mom and Pop’s Oil Drilling Company can’t afford it? BP can well afford it. They have had successive quarters announcing profits (not income—profits) of $4 and 5 billion. They made the mess, and they have to clean it up. However, they are also ruining state and individual businesses’ livelihoods. The few million now set aside for liabilities won’t be a drop in the bucket for what they’ve already done. I say if they drill down and cause a disaster, they can cough up the money to pay those affected. If you can’t pay, stop playing.
Transocean surely does have the money to pay their part. Nonetheless, they are, at this moment, in a Texas court arguing that their liability should be capped at $27 million, and this is not because they can’t afford to bear any more of the responsibility. They finished drilling the Deepwater Horizon well for BP on April 19 and flagged it form the Marshall Islands—a teeny tiny country with almost no regulatory laws--and on April 20, the $650 million rig exploded. Two days later it sank and the oil is still rushing out over twenty days later. If one were to look at the $650 million loss, maybe the $27 million dollar cap could seem less unreasonable. That is, unless you knew that the company, headquartered in Switzerland—known for its ocean frontage? No, it’s lax rules on drilling—hadn’t had a shareholders meeting this past Friday where they voted themselves over a billion dollars in cash to be distributed among their shareholders now. (I know: An oil well dug off coast of U.S., flagged in Marshall Islands and headquartered in Switzerland...Logical? Not really. I wonder why?)
We have all lived with the belief that these industries can regulate themselves. We now know the price of this kind of lax regulation. They are in the business to make money. We should be in the business of making sure that they make that money without destroying the local environment, the lives of people living there, and the planet as well. If they decided it would be too much trouble—and therefore cost--to take the time to replace a stupid gasket to assure pressure measurements were correct, it is obvious they need watching, and careful watching at that.
We now know they only invested in ways to get the oil out. They made no plans as to what to do if one of those wells blew. A Tom Toles editorial cartoon at Washington Post.com sums it up well: If a hat doesn't work, how about a shoe or other Monopoly tokens? I myself would like to see a halt on all off-shore drilling until they show plans for disasters, well-tested plans. We may pay a little more for gas at the pump, but as it is, we will any way, and we will also pay the cost in the grocery store for sea food. Restaurants may go under in some areas, and hotel and recreational facilities located on the Gulf will continue to hurt, resulting in lost livelihoods and tax revenues. Whose fault is it? Not yours or mine.
Let’s act instead of waiting to react.
If any of you witnessed the Congressional hearing featuring See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, you didn’t miss anything if you were looking for answers. Those CEO’s sounded like my kids when they were all younger. “It wasn’t me. He did it.” “I didn’t do it. He did.” It was disgusting. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing well-heeled CEO’s from this industry or Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banking mess’s cohorts sit at a hearing and say, “It wasn’t my fault. And besides, stuff happens.” It makes me want to run screaming into the wilderness.
On May 3, it was reported that at least 2,500 square miles of ocean was covered in this oil, and it is not getting any smaller since it continues to flood out thousands of barrels a day. Yesterday, a BP spokesman reported that the new siphon hose was working. Well whoopee! He said they were able to capture about 1000 barrels a day. How lovely since at least 50,000 barrels are gushing out into the Gulf each and every day. I suppose it is nice to know a siphon hose works better than a huge dome or a flipping top hat. But hey, the junk shot may work. Really? It sounds like third graders are in a room, brainstorming how one might stop up an underwater oil volcano. And besides, BP’s CEO announced that he was sure that the “environmental impact will be very, very modest ” (05/19/2010 on BBC news). When this same company wanted to do this deep-water drilling in the Gulf in the first place, BP assured all officials that they knew how to prevent any possible damages from such drilling, and that they didn’t expect any problems. As far as I’m concerned, any assurances from BP about anything should be taken with a grain of salt.
In spite of that siphon hose's marginal success, as of May 15 Pelican, a marine research vessel in the Gulf, found shocking amounts of oil beneath the water’s surface. These oil plumes are around 10 miles long, 5 miles wide, and 300 feet thick. This massive oil mass is severely lowering the oxygen in areas around these plumes which will most surely result in massive dead zones on the ocean’s floor. And yes, fish need oxygen. That’s what those gills are for. I actually heard someone ask, “What difference does it make if there’s no oxygen? It’s water, isn’t it?” Obviously, he flunked elementary school science.
As of today, May 19, an area the size of the state of PA is off limits for fishing in the Gulf. Senator Bill Nelson of FL just noted that strong southerly winds have already pushed a string of this oil into the Loop Current and that it is expected to reach the shores of Key West in 5 days and Miami beaches in 10.
Gulf shore community's economies depend upon the food and recreational fishing industries as well as tourism. This is no “modest” impact, and I’m pretty sure BP knows that. They have made decisions about their own bottom line, and so they can pay for the mess they made. The Senate currently has a bill to raise the liability of oil companies to $10 billion since the last cap was set in the 1970’s. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (R Alaska) put a hold on it for a couple days. Now James Inhofe (R Oklahoma) has a hold on it because he fears the size of this cap would prevent “Mom and Pop” companies from going into the oil drilling business because they couldn’t afford to pay this cap. If they can’t afford to clean up the possible messes of their business, they shouldn’t go into that business. Other businesses have to have the insurance they need to do that business, don't they? Does Inhoff think you and I should shoulder disaster costs because Mom and Pop’s Oil Drilling Company can’t afford it? BP can well afford it. They have had successive quarters announcing profits (not income—profits) of $4 and 5 billion. They made the mess, and they have to clean it up. However, they are also ruining state and individual businesses’ livelihoods. The few million now set aside for liabilities won’t be a drop in the bucket for what they’ve already done. I say if they drill down and cause a disaster, they can cough up the money to pay those affected. If you can’t pay, stop playing.
Transocean surely does have the money to pay their part. Nonetheless, they are, at this moment, in a Texas court arguing that their liability should be capped at $27 million, and this is not because they can’t afford to bear any more of the responsibility. They finished drilling the Deepwater Horizon well for BP on April 19 and flagged it form the Marshall Islands—a teeny tiny country with almost no regulatory laws--and on April 20, the $650 million rig exploded. Two days later it sank and the oil is still rushing out over twenty days later. If one were to look at the $650 million loss, maybe the $27 million dollar cap could seem less unreasonable. That is, unless you knew that the company, headquartered in Switzerland—known for its ocean frontage? No, it’s lax rules on drilling—hadn’t had a shareholders meeting this past Friday where they voted themselves over a billion dollars in cash to be distributed among their shareholders now. (I know: An oil well dug off coast of U.S., flagged in Marshall Islands and headquartered in Switzerland...Logical? Not really. I wonder why?)
We have all lived with the belief that these industries can regulate themselves. We now know the price of this kind of lax regulation. They are in the business to make money. We should be in the business of making sure that they make that money without destroying the local environment, the lives of people living there, and the planet as well. If they decided it would be too much trouble—and therefore cost--to take the time to replace a stupid gasket to assure pressure measurements were correct, it is obvious they need watching, and careful watching at that.
We now know they only invested in ways to get the oil out. They made no plans as to what to do if one of those wells blew. A Tom Toles editorial cartoon at Washington Post.com sums it up well: If a hat doesn't work, how about a shoe or other Monopoly tokens? I myself would like to see a halt on all off-shore drilling until they show plans for disasters, well-tested plans. We may pay a little more for gas at the pump, but as it is, we will any way, and we will also pay the cost in the grocery store for sea food. Restaurants may go under in some areas, and hotel and recreational facilities located on the Gulf will continue to hurt, resulting in lost livelihoods and tax revenues. Whose fault is it? Not yours or mine.
Let’s act instead of waiting to react.
Monday, April 12, 2010
To STARTor to Stop?
"I call on the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."
I can already hear Rush Limbaugh's derisive rant. This is obviously something said by a starry-eyed, naive liberal, right? It isn't, unless you believe President Ronald Reagan was an idealistic leftist.
Some nay-sayers, hell-bent on denouncing anything President Obama does, are now crying out "Weak!" and even "Treason!" about our president and President Medvedev of Russia signing a new nuclear arms reduction treaty this past week. Does no one else find it odd that Republicans, who laud Ronald Reagan at every opportunity, have suddenly forgotten Reagan's great cause: to rid the world of nuclear weapons? Do they not remember the cause celebre when President Reagan and Gorbachev signed the initial START agreement?
Well, I do remember. I admired President Reagan for his work to cool down the Cold War. I am old enough to remember the Red Scare days of my childhood when people built bomb shelters, when air raid drills were held more frequently than fire drills at my elementary school in Alameda, California. I have not forgotten the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 when everyone in Jewell Hall at UK thought we were standing on the precipice of World War III. It should come as no surprise that when President Reagan began efforts to engage the Soviet Union with efforts toward detente and later, with Gorbachev, to work toward a reduction of nuclear arms, I felt grateful.
Regan was quite clear in his feelings. In is Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985, Ronald Reagan said: "There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing a limit on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth."
Reagan made it clear, on numerous occasions, how he felt, once saying: "The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas--a trial of spiritual resolve--the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, and the ideals to which we are dedicated." I still believe this with all my heart, even more so after 9/11. No one and no security system can stop every single mad person bent on killing, but we must keep those fanatics from causing us to be like them. We must pass the test of our own will to remain true to the ideals on which our country was founded.
Has every Republican in Congress today forgotten what their hero said and believed? It would certainly seem so to hear those taking the mike at this time. Now, a
treaty--yet to be ratified or apparently even read--signed by Presidents Obama and Mededev in Prague is a travesty, at least according to the some of the same people who regard Reagan as the greatest president in our history.
I've read this treaty. It is not difficult or obtuse. This Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) begins efforts to keep loose nukes from the hands of terrorists and rogue states because the spirit of Reagan's START--the 1991 START-I--expired December 2009. What are some of the treaty's components?
1). Both Russia and the U. S. will cut their nuclear stockpiles to 1550 (rather than the 30,000 each had at the beginning of the conference). Who thinks 15,000 nukes makes us weak? In some cases, one would do the trick.
2). The treaty has a clear verification process. If we do as Reagan said--"Trust but verify"--as the treaty specifies, why was it good when Reagan did this and treason when Barack Obama does it?
3). President Medvedev of Russia said: "What matters most is that this is a win-win situation. No one stands to lose from this agreement." How is it that the Russian President sounds more reasonable than some in Congress? I grew up with Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the lectern at the UN, telling us the the USSR would "bury" us. Now it is congress people shouting that this treaty is doom and destruction.
Recently, the Obama administration released the Nuclear Posture Review,articulating its policy on nuclear weapons. It is here that the President declared:
1). The U. S. will not use nuclear arms against countries in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty.
2). The purpose of the U. S. is to deter attacks against this nation.
3). Washington's nuclear policy now concerns nuclear terrorism and proliferation, rather than potential wars between nations, as its first priority.
4). The president can re-evaluate the withholding of nuclear action should he or she feel it is warranted.
5). The Nuclear Posture Review does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against those rogue states that will not sign the treaty and comply with it by allowing inspections--nations like Iran and North Korea.
The responses from Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Sean Hannity have been predictable and virulent. Hannity supports using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear nations and has said so on Fox News many times. He wants "all options open," even in the case of a cyber attack. What then do we say when Iran gives the same excuse for their building up nuclear capability? Palin threw in the usual sound bites that show her lack of knowledge about the topic, and Gingrich went on and on about Obama's being a socialist and leading the worst "regime" since 1865. (I must say, some of this rhetoric is akin the hyperbolic speech leading up to the Civil War.) Glenn Beck cried, again, and worried that the treaty would cause the end of the world. Spare me.
Some Republicans no longer in power and no longer seeking power--George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, for example--see things more sanely and without an eye to besting Obama and winning in 2010. People like Henry Kissinger say that our failure to articulate a willingness to reduce our nuclear arms makes us impotent to tell nations like Iran and others not to develop their own.
How liberal can a policy be when people like Shultz and Kissinger agree with it?
It was Ronald Regan who said:
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." When President Obama expresses those exact sentiments, many call him naive. How about a little perspective, people? How about a little less hypocrisy?
Everything is not about elections. Everything is about finding a way to work together to protect, defend, and maintain this country and what it has been and can be. Our goal should be to keep fro being blown to smithereens, shouldn't it?
I can already hear Rush Limbaugh's derisive rant. This is obviously something said by a starry-eyed, naive liberal, right? It isn't, unless you believe President Ronald Reagan was an idealistic leftist.
Some nay-sayers, hell-bent on denouncing anything President Obama does, are now crying out "Weak!" and even "Treason!" about our president and President Medvedev of Russia signing a new nuclear arms reduction treaty this past week. Does no one else find it odd that Republicans, who laud Ronald Reagan at every opportunity, have suddenly forgotten Reagan's great cause: to rid the world of nuclear weapons? Do they not remember the cause celebre when President Reagan and Gorbachev signed the initial START agreement?
Well, I do remember. I admired President Reagan for his work to cool down the Cold War. I am old enough to remember the Red Scare days of my childhood when people built bomb shelters, when air raid drills were held more frequently than fire drills at my elementary school in Alameda, California. I have not forgotten the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 when everyone in Jewell Hall at UK thought we were standing on the precipice of World War III. It should come as no surprise that when President Reagan began efforts to engage the Soviet Union with efforts toward detente and later, with Gorbachev, to work toward a reduction of nuclear arms, I felt grateful.
Regan was quite clear in his feelings. In is Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985, Ronald Reagan said: "There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing a limit on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth."
Reagan made it clear, on numerous occasions, how he felt, once saying: "The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas--a trial of spiritual resolve--the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, and the ideals to which we are dedicated." I still believe this with all my heart, even more so after 9/11. No one and no security system can stop every single mad person bent on killing, but we must keep those fanatics from causing us to be like them. We must pass the test of our own will to remain true to the ideals on which our country was founded.
Has every Republican in Congress today forgotten what their hero said and believed? It would certainly seem so to hear those taking the mike at this time. Now, a
treaty--yet to be ratified or apparently even read--signed by Presidents Obama and Mededev in Prague is a travesty, at least according to the some of the same people who regard Reagan as the greatest president in our history.
I've read this treaty. It is not difficult or obtuse. This Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) begins efforts to keep loose nukes from the hands of terrorists and rogue states because the spirit of Reagan's START--the 1991 START-I--expired December 2009. What are some of the treaty's components?
1). Both Russia and the U. S. will cut their nuclear stockpiles to 1550 (rather than the 30,000 each had at the beginning of the conference). Who thinks 15,000 nukes makes us weak? In some cases, one would do the trick.
2). The treaty has a clear verification process. If we do as Reagan said--"Trust but verify"--as the treaty specifies, why was it good when Reagan did this and treason when Barack Obama does it?
3). President Medvedev of Russia said: "What matters most is that this is a win-win situation. No one stands to lose from this agreement." How is it that the Russian President sounds more reasonable than some in Congress? I grew up with Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the lectern at the UN, telling us the the USSR would "bury" us. Now it is congress people shouting that this treaty is doom and destruction.
Recently, the Obama administration released the Nuclear Posture Review,articulating its policy on nuclear weapons. It is here that the President declared:
1). The U. S. will not use nuclear arms against countries in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty.
2). The purpose of the U. S. is to deter attacks against this nation.
3). Washington's nuclear policy now concerns nuclear terrorism and proliferation, rather than potential wars between nations, as its first priority.
4). The president can re-evaluate the withholding of nuclear action should he or she feel it is warranted.
5). The Nuclear Posture Review does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against those rogue states that will not sign the treaty and comply with it by allowing inspections--nations like Iran and North Korea.
The responses from Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Sean Hannity have been predictable and virulent. Hannity supports using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear nations and has said so on Fox News many times. He wants "all options open," even in the case of a cyber attack. What then do we say when Iran gives the same excuse for their building up nuclear capability? Palin threw in the usual sound bites that show her lack of knowledge about the topic, and Gingrich went on and on about Obama's being a socialist and leading the worst "regime" since 1865. (I must say, some of this rhetoric is akin the hyperbolic speech leading up to the Civil War.) Glenn Beck cried, again, and worried that the treaty would cause the end of the world. Spare me.
Some Republicans no longer in power and no longer seeking power--George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, for example--see things more sanely and without an eye to besting Obama and winning in 2010. People like Henry Kissinger say that our failure to articulate a willingness to reduce our nuclear arms makes us impotent to tell nations like Iran and others not to develop their own.
How liberal can a policy be when people like Shultz and Kissinger agree with it?
It was Ronald Regan who said:
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." When President Obama expresses those exact sentiments, many call him naive. How about a little perspective, people? How about a little less hypocrisy?
Everything is not about elections. Everything is about finding a way to work together to protect, defend, and maintain this country and what it has been and can be. Our goal should be to keep fro being blown to smithereens, shouldn't it?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Caling Miss Manners: SOS!
Is civility dead and gone? It would certainly seem so. As citizens of the U. S., we have a constitutional right to assemble, to speak freely, and to petition our government. We have the right to protest government actions with which we disagree, even a duty to do so. But there are lines that we should not cross lest we diminish our message or the reputation of the group with which we associate. Few of us learn the lessons history teaches us, mostly because we think that message does not pertain to us. We do not learn from history because we are not the same people who learned it the last time.
As we listen to the hatred and vitriol being spewed in some protests today, I am reminded of a lesson I did learn from history because I am one of the people learned it last time. Some on the left lost both credibility and respect when peaceful anti-war protest became laced with hateful epithets hurled at soldiers who had honorably answered their country’s call. Environmental protest that had effectively called attention to our disregard of nature’s fragility lost support and credibility when words were replaced with violence. The honor and dignity of the Civil Rights nonviolent protest showed the ugliness of racism and yielded positive change through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. But when the non-violent protest was replaced by the armed anger of the Black Panthers, some of the progress made by people like John Lewis and Dr. King was overshadowed by the by the rage of others like Angela Davis, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale
Today, some on the right have forgotten the lesson history learned by some of us on the left. We remember what happened when some in our groups became so extreme that they engendered fear and hate. They did not persuade anyone. If anything, they caused a backlash, and liberal became an epithet equated with rage and unreasonable nastiness. Progressive ideals were largely regarded as naïve or more like Don Quixote’s swatting at windmills: unrealistic or even unreasonable. Those allied with the Tea Party movement have every right to express their disapproval of legislative acts that they do not like. But all must remember one immutable fact. There are philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. That’s what elections are about. Those out of power will always march against the winners. These protests are at the very heart of what it means to be an engaged American citizen.
But the ugliness of a fringe element—and note that I said fringe—allied with the Tea Party movement has become almost frightening in its intensity. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D. Missouri), an African-American, was spat upon walking up to the Capitol Building. The face of that enraged man made me recall another face contorted in rage and shouting at Elizabeth Eckford in 1957 when she, as part of the Little Rock Nine, entered newly desegregated Central High School in Arkansas. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, ever. Not when some spat on soldiers in the 1960’s and not when angry whites spat at black students integrating formerly all white schools. Ant not now. Furthermore, it was deplorable and reprehensible to see anti-war protesters call returning G. I.’s “baby killers,” and it is just as deplorable and reprehensible that Representative Randy Neugebauer (R. Texas) called Bart Stupak (D. Michigan.) a baby killer on the floor of Congress. And while I’m at it, it is never all right to call a gay man a “faggot,” and it was obscene for someone in the Tea Party crowd to shout that at Barney Frank (D. Massachusetts), just because the protester did not like Frank’s politics. And, it is abhorrent—beyond comprehension—for another in that crowd to call Representative John Lewis (D. Georgia) a “nigger.” To hurl this kind of racial slur at this man--a man beaten and jailed during non-violent Civil Rights marches, a man who faced hatred, clubs, and tear gas as he crossed the Pettus Bridge during the first march from Selma to Montgomery—is beyond the pale.
It is anyone’s right to express a contrary point of view of any policy. I applaud and cherish that right and use it myself, frequently. But it is never all right to level personal epithets when it is a policy with which you disagree. Grow up, people. Try to take your political discussions beyond playground taunts and behavior.
Finally, there are some facts that seem to have been lost in the shuffle in some of these protests:
1). The original Tea Party in Boston was a protest against Britain’s taxation of the colonists without colonial representation in Parliament; i. e., “taxation without representation.” We had an election in 2008, and voters chose their representatives. The protesters are represented, whether or not they like their representatives. That’s what the next election is about.
2). To those carrying placards reading: Keep the government out of my Medicare. It is the government that provides your Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer government-run program that most seniors love. Either don’t use it or get over it.
3). None of the cable news programs gives fair and balanced anything. I as liberal-leaning, watch CNN and MSNBC because I like to have my sentiments supported. I feel the same way about Fox News as some Glenn Beck lovers feel about Keith Oberman. And guess what? Not everything you read on the internet or in a forwarded e-mail is true. If you want to know what is going on, you must dig a bit deeper and read multiple sources. Don’t be lazy and take anyone’s word for anything.
4). Do not let someone else tell you what is or is not in a bill or what a politician did or did not say. Read the bill yourself. Listen to or read the transcript of the politician’s speech or broadcast yourself. I know you must have played gossip or telephone in elementary school. I know you know what happened to “So and so told someone who heard it from his cousin who knew….” Distortion of any resemblance to the truth is the result. Do your homework before you yell. Had some done this, no one would have shouted about a health care bill that advocated Death Panels much less believed it.
5). I voted for President Obama, but I fully understand that some, or even half, the American citizenry may not agree with me. You and I should be free to agree to disagree in a civil manner. And yet some of the Tea Party fringe elements feel no shame holding up a sign with Obama wearing African aboriginal attire and sporting a bone in his nose. If others standing next to those people don’t distance themselves from these sign-carriers, why should I not assume that they agree with this message? Ditto the protestors carrying signs of the president as Hitler or in white face. And to the birthers and all the cowardly GOP Congress members who are afraid to call them out, I have to wonder what you really mean.
All of us—left, right, and middle—have to find a way to work together to solve the problems facing us today and to do so in a civil manner. Very little constructive was ever accomplished by hysterics. Hissy fits rarely produce positive outcomes, and the fit-thrower is never respected. This country has some problems, but none that cannot be mitigated or solved if everyone sits down and discusses issues reasonably. Neither the left nor the right can ever have 100% of their issues enacted. Compromise is how this country was formed, and compromise is the only way it can survive. We have to rediscover civility and ways to have polite discourse, and soon.
As we listen to the hatred and vitriol being spewed in some protests today, I am reminded of a lesson I did learn from history because I am one of the people learned it last time. Some on the left lost both credibility and respect when peaceful anti-war protest became laced with hateful epithets hurled at soldiers who had honorably answered their country’s call. Environmental protest that had effectively called attention to our disregard of nature’s fragility lost support and credibility when words were replaced with violence. The honor and dignity of the Civil Rights nonviolent protest showed the ugliness of racism and yielded positive change through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. But when the non-violent protest was replaced by the armed anger of the Black Panthers, some of the progress made by people like John Lewis and Dr. King was overshadowed by the by the rage of others like Angela Davis, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale
Today, some on the right have forgotten the lesson history learned by some of us on the left. We remember what happened when some in our groups became so extreme that they engendered fear and hate. They did not persuade anyone. If anything, they caused a backlash, and liberal became an epithet equated with rage and unreasonable nastiness. Progressive ideals were largely regarded as naïve or more like Don Quixote’s swatting at windmills: unrealistic or even unreasonable. Those allied with the Tea Party movement have every right to express their disapproval of legislative acts that they do not like. But all must remember one immutable fact. There are philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. That’s what elections are about. Those out of power will always march against the winners. These protests are at the very heart of what it means to be an engaged American citizen.
But the ugliness of a fringe element—and note that I said fringe—allied with the Tea Party movement has become almost frightening in its intensity. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D. Missouri), an African-American, was spat upon walking up to the Capitol Building. The face of that enraged man made me recall another face contorted in rage and shouting at Elizabeth Eckford in 1957 when she, as part of the Little Rock Nine, entered newly desegregated Central High School in Arkansas. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, ever. Not when some spat on soldiers in the 1960’s and not when angry whites spat at black students integrating formerly all white schools. Ant not now. Furthermore, it was deplorable and reprehensible to see anti-war protesters call returning G. I.’s “baby killers,” and it is just as deplorable and reprehensible that Representative Randy Neugebauer (R. Texas) called Bart Stupak (D. Michigan.) a baby killer on the floor of Congress. And while I’m at it, it is never all right to call a gay man a “faggot,” and it was obscene for someone in the Tea Party crowd to shout that at Barney Frank (D. Massachusetts), just because the protester did not like Frank’s politics. And, it is abhorrent—beyond comprehension—for another in that crowd to call Representative John Lewis (D. Georgia) a “nigger.” To hurl this kind of racial slur at this man--a man beaten and jailed during non-violent Civil Rights marches, a man who faced hatred, clubs, and tear gas as he crossed the Pettus Bridge during the first march from Selma to Montgomery—is beyond the pale.
It is anyone’s right to express a contrary point of view of any policy. I applaud and cherish that right and use it myself, frequently. But it is never all right to level personal epithets when it is a policy with which you disagree. Grow up, people. Try to take your political discussions beyond playground taunts and behavior.
Finally, there are some facts that seem to have been lost in the shuffle in some of these protests:
1). The original Tea Party in Boston was a protest against Britain’s taxation of the colonists without colonial representation in Parliament; i. e., “taxation without representation.” We had an election in 2008, and voters chose their representatives. The protesters are represented, whether or not they like their representatives. That’s what the next election is about.
2). To those carrying placards reading: Keep the government out of my Medicare. It is the government that provides your Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer government-run program that most seniors love. Either don’t use it or get over it.
3). None of the cable news programs gives fair and balanced anything. I as liberal-leaning, watch CNN and MSNBC because I like to have my sentiments supported. I feel the same way about Fox News as some Glenn Beck lovers feel about Keith Oberman. And guess what? Not everything you read on the internet or in a forwarded e-mail is true. If you want to know what is going on, you must dig a bit deeper and read multiple sources. Don’t be lazy and take anyone’s word for anything.
4). Do not let someone else tell you what is or is not in a bill or what a politician did or did not say. Read the bill yourself. Listen to or read the transcript of the politician’s speech or broadcast yourself. I know you must have played gossip or telephone in elementary school. I know you know what happened to “So and so told someone who heard it from his cousin who knew….” Distortion of any resemblance to the truth is the result. Do your homework before you yell. Had some done this, no one would have shouted about a health care bill that advocated Death Panels much less believed it.
5). I voted for President Obama, but I fully understand that some, or even half, the American citizenry may not agree with me. You and I should be free to agree to disagree in a civil manner. And yet some of the Tea Party fringe elements feel no shame holding up a sign with Obama wearing African aboriginal attire and sporting a bone in his nose. If others standing next to those people don’t distance themselves from these sign-carriers, why should I not assume that they agree with this message? Ditto the protestors carrying signs of the president as Hitler or in white face. And to the birthers and all the cowardly GOP Congress members who are afraid to call them out, I have to wonder what you really mean.
All of us—left, right, and middle—have to find a way to work together to solve the problems facing us today and to do so in a civil manner. Very little constructive was ever accomplished by hysterics. Hissy fits rarely produce positive outcomes, and the fit-thrower is never respected. This country has some problems, but none that cannot be mitigated or solved if everyone sits down and discusses issues reasonably. Neither the left nor the right can ever have 100% of their issues enacted. Compromise is how this country was formed, and compromise is the only way it can survive. We have to rediscover civility and ways to have polite discourse, and soon.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Credit Card Reform? Not So Much
Now that we have had some new regulations placed on credit card companies, they have had to make some changes, but believe me, the changes are minimal. I did appreciate the easier-to-read statement that included more specifics about interest costs and the length of time it will take to pay off the card paying only the minimum payment. Thanks a lot! Now, shall we talk about what the four and a half pages of tiny-tiny print say?
After they discuss--in only slightly less mysteriously obscure language—our Agreement Acceptance and Amendments, they toss in the caveats: “We have the right to change the terms of this Agreement for any reason, and in any respect, by adding, deleting or modifying any provision, including APRs, fees, the Minimum Payment and other terms.” Really? And this is supposed to make me feel all better because?
Another interesting proviso is the one under Credit Line. They tell us that the credit line is what they had called the credit limit. This is reform? Subtle changes in semantics? They add: “We may change or cancel your credit line without telling you ahead of time. If we do, it will not excuse you from your obligations to pay us.” Let me see: They can change the rules in the middle of the game, but we, the card-holder, are ordered to play the game by any rules they set down whenever they decide to do so? That’s like adding football rules to a basketball game at half-time. How does this make any sense at all unless one has fallen down the rabbit hole and is now hanging out in Wonderland? Actually, it’s more like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules as he or she goes along. It works out well for the child but not for anyone else playing.
Let’s face it. We cannot win in this battle. No one can function in the world today without a credit card. We cannot make a hotel reservation or book a flight without one. It actually hurts your credit rating if you only pay for everything in cash, and in some cases, it is even suspect. The credit card companies have us just where they want us, and it is evidently impossible to pass substantial reform in Congress as enough congressmen and women are in the pockets of Wall Street and Money in general. The moneyed interests have deep pockets and the bonuses to prove it.
A few years ago, I finally managed to pay off everyone and now have but my debit card and one credit card. I had held on to another that I never used because it had a higher credit line, just in case there were a huge emergency. A few months ago, that company wrote to me and discontinued my card because I had not used it in a year. It is not worth their time if I owe them nothing. Sad, isn’t it?
And then, just when I thought I had heard everything, I read about one credit card company’s plan to add a fee to users’ cards if they hadn’t used them that month. All of this just gives me a terrible headache. However, I had better not get sick enough that I need to use a credit card for a hospital expense, only to learn that they have changed my credit line without telling me since they can do that “without telling you ahead of time.” What happens then? My bet is that my interest rate would go up to one that would make Shylock blush, and I’d owe some kind of penalty as well. Is usury even a word anymore? Is there some significant difference between some lenders and loan sharks? Next thing you know, your Master Card or Visa provider will be sending out some thug to knee cap us, literally. Now they only do it figuratively.
After they discuss--in only slightly less mysteriously obscure language—our Agreement Acceptance and Amendments, they toss in the caveats: “We have the right to change the terms of this Agreement for any reason, and in any respect, by adding, deleting or modifying any provision, including APRs, fees, the Minimum Payment and other terms.” Really? And this is supposed to make me feel all better because?
Another interesting proviso is the one under Credit Line. They tell us that the credit line is what they had called the credit limit. This is reform? Subtle changes in semantics? They add: “We may change or cancel your credit line without telling you ahead of time. If we do, it will not excuse you from your obligations to pay us.” Let me see: They can change the rules in the middle of the game, but we, the card-holder, are ordered to play the game by any rules they set down whenever they decide to do so? That’s like adding football rules to a basketball game at half-time. How does this make any sense at all unless one has fallen down the rabbit hole and is now hanging out in Wonderland? Actually, it’s more like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules as he or she goes along. It works out well for the child but not for anyone else playing.
Let’s face it. We cannot win in this battle. No one can function in the world today without a credit card. We cannot make a hotel reservation or book a flight without one. It actually hurts your credit rating if you only pay for everything in cash, and in some cases, it is even suspect. The credit card companies have us just where they want us, and it is evidently impossible to pass substantial reform in Congress as enough congressmen and women are in the pockets of Wall Street and Money in general. The moneyed interests have deep pockets and the bonuses to prove it.
A few years ago, I finally managed to pay off everyone and now have but my debit card and one credit card. I had held on to another that I never used because it had a higher credit line, just in case there were a huge emergency. A few months ago, that company wrote to me and discontinued my card because I had not used it in a year. It is not worth their time if I owe them nothing. Sad, isn’t it?
And then, just when I thought I had heard everything, I read about one credit card company’s plan to add a fee to users’ cards if they hadn’t used them that month. All of this just gives me a terrible headache. However, I had better not get sick enough that I need to use a credit card for a hospital expense, only to learn that they have changed my credit line without telling me since they can do that “without telling you ahead of time.” What happens then? My bet is that my interest rate would go up to one that would make Shylock blush, and I’d owe some kind of penalty as well. Is usury even a word anymore? Is there some significant difference between some lenders and loan sharks? Next thing you know, your Master Card or Visa provider will be sending out some thug to knee cap us, literally. Now they only do it figuratively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
