Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Activist Judges

This year, I have been doing my best to stay current with the work of the Supreme Court. I have read more about the individuals and the rulings of the Supreme Court in this year than in my entire lifetime. I am not proud of the fact that I have been so disinterested in this branch of the government, but I think it reflects a similar attitude among most Americans, even those more involved than myself. We focus most of our energy on the executive and legislative branches than the judicial. If anyone would like to offer an opinion of why this is, feel free.

The Supreme Court does not rule on many cases in a given year; sometimes their refusal not to hear a case is as important as actually ruling on a case. Other than the occasional ruling, most decisions are not front page news. I read the Phila Inquirer and generally have to look carefully through the first section of the paper to find information on those decisions. Most of the talk of the Supreme Court, other than during the time of a nomination for a new judge, centers around one side or the other (of the political spectrum) claiming that a recent decision demonstrates an activist judge. In most cases, this is considered a negative description of that decision.

Again, I am no expert but I have done a bit of research lately. What confuses me is that an activist judge is generally defined as someone who rejected past rulings or precedents in support of something not in current law or, in the opinion of the talking heads, against the constitution. But if they always ruled in favor of current law, how would anything change? Was it an activist court that allowed the separate but equal laws of the Jim Crow years or was it the one that struck down those laws as discriminatory?

Clearly, the laws of the land, hence the rulings of the Supreme Court, will be effected by the moral and social standards of the day. To me, this evolving set of standards should also apply to our interpretation of the constitution. Some of our founding fathers bought and sold slaves. Being wrong on that count, does not make their work on the constitution and declaration any less inspirational. But perhaps it does show that as our society changes, so might our laws.

The two recent Supreme Court rulings that disturb me the most are centered on individual rights and the right to bear arms.

My understanding of the Supreme Court's decision on donations by corporations is that corporations are allowed to donate as much money as they want to those running for office because not allowing them to do so violates their rights as individuals to spend their money without constraint from the government. 

The justices for the ruling were conservative and sighted first amendment rights; those against it were more liberal and expressed concern over the effect special interests are having on our elections. 

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, how can one defend their position as reflective of the founding fathers? I don't believe the concept of the corporation existed then. So we are left to interpret what we think they might think on the issue. But wouldn't that interpretation reflect not only all the intervening years of the buildup of big business and the changing face of how we elect our officials, but also the individual stances of the judges as well? 

Is it a coincidence that the judges for the ruling tend to be aligned with a political position that favors big business while those against tend to align themselves with a political position that suggests that the everyday people of this country are losing access to their government? It is one reason why, despite applauding the tea party movement for its energy, I sometimes question their true motivations. I know that the movement is against government bailouts and wall street handouts, so why wouldn't that translate into outrage at a ruling that allows even more money to flow from the recipients of those bailouts?

The most recent ruling concerning the right to bear arms was centered on the gun control laws in Chicago. The ruling, again 5 conservatives to 4 liberals, struck down the current laws by claiming that cities and states do not have the power to restrict gun ownership, only federal laws may do so. The Second Amendment is paramount. 

I do not own a gun and can't imagine I ever will, but I am not so arrogant to believe that my beliefs should prevent free citizens of this country from their beliefs. However, I would be more sympathetic to gun right activists if they would admit that requiring a background check and compulsory training before ownership would make sense. 
Also, reporting the loss or theft of your gun might be wise. And possessing semi-automatic weapons anywhere other than a war zone is probably not a good idea. 

But rather than working to create reasonable gun control laws we have people clinging to a belief that because our founding fathers used guns to fight for their independence and hunt for their food, we should avoid all gun controls. Perhaps it is just our way of coping with a changing world. What we don't understand or agree with, we shoot. 

But seriously, is that what we want. Everyone toting a gun in the neighborhood, just in case there is a crime? As it is, innocent bystanders are hit by gunfire, even when the shooter is a trained policemen. Do you think collateral injuries and deaths will go up or down if more people are firing away? Guns for self defense? I can understand it, but when faced with the data that shows that many times more people are killed with their own gun (or that of someone they know) as compared to a someone committing a crime, I wonder what it would be like if no one had a gun and I can't blame those governing a city like Chicago who feel that they must try anything to stop the bloodshed. 

By the way, did the laws work? Did murders decrease? Shouldn't that have been one of the criteria for the decision? 

So, in the first of the above two cases, I feel that the Supreme Court acted in an activist way, overruling precedent (and congressional laws) in the process. This activist ruling makes it harder for regular citizens of this country to express their disillusionment with the current election process that includes such huge amounts of money. In the second, they were not activist as they used a strict interpretation of the constitution to strike down the gun laws of Chicago. But to me, this required an interpretation that reflected the reality of today, not that of 250 years ago.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Big Chilling

A few nights ago, I watched the movie, The Big Chill for the first time in quite a while. (As a side note, I believe this was the 2nd movie my wife and I saw when we first started dating, the first being Star Wars, Revenge of the Jedi).

For those who have never seen The Big Chill, or don't remember the premise, in a nutshell, it details the forced reunion of a group of college friends after one of their group commits suicide. The music, of course, is dated if you are younger than 45, classic if of a more mature age. There are a number of interesting topics touched on by the friends as they grapple with their friend's death, their (mostly) disconnected lives since then, their current situations and the effect of their "histories" on their memories and the meaning of those times.

Although I am a college graduate, my Big Chill group includes friends I spent time with in the early to mid 80's. While a few did attend college, the core group only visited those attending higher education and only as an extension of our primary activities; rock concerts, parties, jobs for money, parties. To this day, I think of those friends, stay in touch with a few on an irregular basis and, occasionally, live in the past of my Big Chill group.

But I digress.

The reason for this post was to discuss the scene in the movie when the group reviews their hopes and dreams of those college days and how their current life choices reflect on those idealistic times.

Quick side bar here. Was this movie based on a book? If so, I would love to know if someone has read it as I would imagine the idealism that they only allude to in the movie is fleshed out more considerably in the book.

Anyway, it is idealism that is the point of this blog. In the movie, it is clear that the lawyer and the writer admittedly compromised their ideals for material comforts. The Kevin Kline character is unabashedly rich but I don't sense he was necessarily as idealistic as the other members of the group. The "druggie" seems to have maintained some idealism but uses the excuse of a narcissistic world to justify his continued use of drugs. Finally, the friend who has killed himself is portrayed as the most idealistic (and smartest) of the bunch; there is a scene, I think at the funeral where someone says he was too good for this world. And we know what happened to him.

In retrospect, perhaps I should be insulted by the portrayal of idealism in this movie. Although, as I look around at America today in light of the extreme greed, both individual and corporate that seems to rule the day, perhaps this portrayal is accurate. What happened to the challenge posed by our first "young" president who asked us to think about the country first and ourselves second. While so many took up his challenge and became teachers and social service providers, it is also this generation that has promulgated the obsession for "wealth" that led to our buying things on credit that we couldn't afford and creating financial instruments that were built on debt.

Some see a similar seed in President Obama's vision, but the ground upon which his words are spread seems less fertile. What is good for business, is good for America seems to be the rallying cry even as the gusher in the gulf continues to spew thousands of gallons of oil into our environment.

So, is idealism dead like the character in the movie? If not, what signs point to its existence? Solar panels on your roof or a hybrid car in the driveway? Familiarity and patronage at your local businesses, even if they are a bit more costly than the Wal-Mart SuperCenter? A portfolio that purposely posits social causes and green technology over profit? A job that provides spiritual compensation as well (or instead of) material rewards? Priorities that put the reduction of human suffering over the accumulation of natural resources, or land, or influence?

Perhaps the start is to at least acknowledge that we would like to return to the idealistic roots of our youth. If not, then let's hope that idealism does not go the way of the dead friend in the movie.

Monday, June 21, 2010

The Line

I would imagine that if you asked the next 50 people that you encounter, 49 of them, if they answered seriously, would say that, all things being equal, they expected to go to heaven when they died. I have always thought that most people are good. My days of hitchhiking confirmed that belief, and my experiences at work, and in my community have done nothing to change that opinion. But what if we are wrong? What if the creator expects more us?

Less scrambling for wealth and more helping those less fortunate than ourselves. Less trumpeting ways in which we are better than others and more recognition that the birth lottery was good to us, how can we progress the lives of those not so lucky. Less finding reasons to distrust, isolate and kill, more searching for ways to bridge our differences; more love, less hate.

What if, at the end of the day, it is simply a matter of how many we've helped, not how much we've earned?


The Line

The rain pelted the windshield making visibility very limited. There was no place to pull over, so the driver of the car continued on, slowly. At a blind curve, two headlights lit up the night, temporarily turning the darkness into light. The collision occurred almost simultaneously as the driver's eyes recovered from the sudden light allowing him no time to react. The car teetered momentarily at the cliff's edge, then slid down the ravine into the shallow water below. Funny, the man thought, no pain.

The line stretched on in front of me to a point where I could still make out the colors of clothes but not the faces of their wearers. There was little chatter around me but it all sounded forced like the interactions one hears in an elevator. I chose to remain silent, only nodding my head at the woman in front of me when she turned around and smiled the smile one sees in line at the grocery store. Or at a funeral.

Gradually, we shuffled forward. We didn't seem to be moving very quickly yet I didn't sense the impatience one usually feels from a group stuck in a slowly moving, long line. I wondered if they all felt as I did, a feeling that the time would come, soon enough, when we would find ourseves at the front of the line. I heard a short, suppressed laugh in the distance behind me. It was a laugh that seemed to have been stopped short, not just by its owner but by the group as a whole, as if to remind everyone in line that this was not the place for laughter.

After a while, more than minutes but less than hours, I was surprised to find that I had a folder tucked under my arm. I glanced around me and noticed that everyone else also carried a similar folder. No one had opened their package and I followed suit.

More time passed and I was beginning to hear the words being spoken at the front of the line. Well, not really actual words, but voices. Soon I realized that every other voice seemed to be of the same pitch and eventually I understood that each conversation featured the voice of someone in line, like me, and the response from the person who was waiting for us. All of the conversations were brief.

For the second time since I had found myself in line, I was surprised. This time, my surprise was the result of realizing that there were two additional lines leading away from the front of the line in which I waited. How could I have missed them before? One moved very slowly and was extremely crowded. It disappeared into the distance and I got the sense that it did not end just out of sight. The second line was sparsely populated and the people moving within it were free to stride or trot or walk casually as they felt. I noticed that all those around me were also aware of the two lines. I imagined that they wished as I did, to be allowed to join those in that second line.

When I turned my attention back towards the front of my line, I could now clearly see the people as they approached the man whose voice I first detected. He was tall and lean, clothed in loose garb. There was nothing special about his clothes but he obviously commanded the attention of each person who approached him. As each individual personal drama played out, the tall man nodded, each person opened their folder, glanced at the words inside then handed the folder to the man. I heard each person say something, heard his voice respond, then watched as the majority of them walked off to the first, much longer line.

I was getting close now. I should have been close enough to hear the words but for some reason I could not. Yet I could tell that most of the conversations were not ending in the manner that was anticipated. While there was no anger being expressed, there was clearly disappointment of the kind that comes when an outcome is exactly opposite of expectation.

Then, despite the fact that I felt that I had been in line for quite a while, I was suddenly at the front of the line. It reminded me of the conversations that I had had with my grandparents when I was a young adult and they in the twilight of their lives. Time can seem interminable, they all said, yet your life can seem so short, and the time of inevitable death can seem so sudden.

I looked up at the man at the front of the line. He was taller than I had calculated while I was standing in line. But it wasn't his height that was his most striking feature. It was his eyes. They were direct, compassionate, and sad. I had seen similar expressions during conversations where tragic news was being relayed. But his sadness went beyond the sadness that comes from just bringing bad news; his sadness seemed to reflect a responsibility in that he had provided the way to avoid this bad news but it had been ignored. He was obviously reading judgements yet these judgements were far from the judicial impartiality that we expect in our courts. He was visibly saddened by the decisions he was rendering.

I opened my folder and found one piece of paper with a sentence in very large print. It said, YOU MAY ASK ONE QUESTION. Below that line were other words in a language that I did not understand but clearly conveyed something to the man.

"How do you earn the right to take the second line?", I asked.

"You made your choice of which line you would walk every day of your life. You earned time on Line Two every time you performed an act of kindness, doubly so when done for someone you didn't know or who was different from yourself. You earned time on Line Two when your life reflected the spirit of your beliefs, when you were nice when it was hard to be nice, and when you defended someone being treated unjustly. You earned time on Line Two when you used the abilities that you were born with to help those less fortunate than yourself."

"You earned time on Line One when you made choices to benefit yourself regardless of its effect on others. You earned time on Line One when you used your religion to define who to love and who to hate. And you earned time on Line One when you did nothing even though you knew what was right but deferred action to someone else. You earned time on Line One when you used the abilities that you were born with to help only yourself."

"I told you how to live, did you not listen? So many men carrying the message of love, did you not heed them? So much suffering to help ease, did you not see it?"

I reflected on my life in an attempt to calculate which line I had earned through my actions and in-actions. I glanced up at the man at the front of the line and moved towards the line he indicated.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Vision and Values

The following letter was published in my local paper, The News Herald, last week. It was in response to an editorial that was in a previous edition. The author of that article is what many might describe as a representative of the Christian Right. If you google the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College (in PA, by the way), you will quickly get a taste of their perspective and philosophy.

As you can see below, I sometimes get perturbed at people who use religion to justify isolating groups of people from their net of love. If I haven't mentioned this before (I do not touch on it in this letter), I am especially perplexed at the outright hatred (or is it fear) that groups like this demonstrate for the gay community. To me, denying fellow humans the right to marry the person of their choice seems as far out of whack with the spirit of religion as anything else that goes on in this world.

Anyway, here is the letter, feel free to comment.

Joe


To the Editor:

Another "enlightening" article by a member of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. In this one, Dr. Paul Kengor tells us that "I don't think we can say the Bible explicitly prohibits all public welfare. Nor would I argue that government has no role addressing the needy". He then states that he would hesitate to define health care as a "right" and that he believes "a moral society/state has a duty to ensure that people aren't denied health coverage if they show up uninsured in an emergency room". Well thanks so much for that bone! I am sure all the millions of people who are, in fact, denied health care coverage because they are "too sick" and are forced to go to an emergency room whether their emergency is a cold or cancer, are grateful for your definition of a moral society's duty.

Admittedly, I do not hold a doctorate degree as Dr. Kengor does. And perhaps I am naive to think that the vast majority of poor people would prefer to be not poor if they could. But to justify the denial of health coverage to any human being because it drains away the profits of a "health" insurance company, to deny a health claim by someone who has paid their premiums and is now stricken with cancer or diabetes because of some fine print in the health care coverage concerning pre-existing conditions, not only seems amoral but if that conduct is not "explicitly prohibited" by the bible then I must be reading a different book than Dr. Kengor.

The real tragedy of this kind of thinking is that during the Reagan and 2nd Bush Administrations, the national deficit was doubled and few in the Christian right seemed to mind because we were fighting those dreaded communists and horrible terrorists/Islamists. Funny how an expensive and destructive war against an "ism" different from yours is OK but the "social justice" movement that promotes better wages, improved health care, less prejudices based on race, religion and sexual orientation is "too expensive" and self destructive.

So, here is the real question. And I ask this, not to Dr. Kengor but to all the readers of these words, the hard-working people of this community who most probably feel that they have lived a good life and will be admitted into heaven when they pass.

Who is most likely to join you in eternal paradise? Those that spent their lives fighting to help the less fortunate gain access to decent housing, those that fought to get health care for the sick, those who spent time with the downtrodden of society, those who read the New Testament and thought that Jesus demonstrated a new way to treat each other and who then lived his life among those very same people that were considered the lepers of his time, or will it be time spent with the powerful and rich of the world who work feverishly to maintain the status quo which coincidentally works well for them?

Do you think the selfish or selfless will be with you? Those that preach love or those that use the words of religion to define who we should love and who we should hate?

The facts speak for themselves. In the last 30 years in America, the rich have become richer, the poor have become poorer and those in the middle are losing ground. What will it take until we wake up and realize that without "social justice" the strong prey on the weak?

Please, let me know what you think. Am I wrong? Did Jesus spend his time on earth to show us that we should ignore the plights of others who need our help or to love thy neighbor as thyself? I know his is a tough example to follow and I am certainly not saying I have spent my life heeding his words. But lately, I am finding it more difficult to stand by while articles like those written by Dr. Kengor pretend it is OK to be cruel to each other as long as you use religion to justify the cruelty.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Archives

I started this story back in February, let it go a while, then "finished" it about 2 weeks ago. Of course, as anyone who writes knows, finish is a relative term, but for now I am happy with it. Feel free to comment and/or tell me what you would do as the question is posed at the end of the story.


The Archives

I glanced in the hallway mirror one last time. I could hear the limo waiting for me as its engine idled in the street in front of my apartment. I had received many awards in my life, gave speeches in front of the most powerful and influential people in the country. But I was as nervous as a girl preparing for the junior prom. Today, I was to visit the Library of Congress where I was to be the first person to gain access to the historical papers from the Great War.

The Great War. 

A time of unparalleled death and destruction on earth. Twenty plus years of war resulting in the loss of over a billion people, the injury of another two billion and the displacement of virtually 1 out of every 2 human beings on the planet. It had taken almost 30 years just to compile all the records now housed in the Library of Congress as the disbursement of information and true understanding of the scope of the conflict was so daunting. And then another 20 years of secrecy; not just because the details of the war were so difficult to comprehend but because the task of establishing a viable lifestyle for the remaining population was all encompassing. But now, finally, 3 generations since the beginning of the what was eventually called the Reclamation, someone other than one of the seven Circle of Elders was authorized to read, review and report on the summary of the most darkest and conversely, most unifying time of human existence.

The ride to the Library was not long, only about 15 minutes, but along the route we passed a microcosm of what remained and had become of the earth in the last seventy plus years. All of the monuments of Washington DC that had existed in the early 21st century were gone. Virtually all of the homes, businesses, transportation outlets, literally everything man made that had once stood in and around this city was destroyed. 

Indeed, even the natural elements of the land, the river paths, rolling hills, groups of trees, and the animals and birds that lived within them, all of it was changed. While the desire to link the old names to these new places had become tired, the reality of this place, this New Washington DC was as true as it was for New Moscow and New London and New Beijing. All of the major population centers were now equal in their age and similar in their architecture and design. One could now travel to most of the large metropolitan areas and feel at home; even the language which had been designated in the early days as a mostly English base continued to be spoken universally.

The Great War had started innocently enough. An unknown object splashed into the Chesapeake Bay one spring afternoon, witnessed by literally thousands of people out enjoying the unseasonable weather. When the aquatic and waterfowl life in the bay started dying, no definitive explanation could be discerned, at first. Then, another object fell into the Mediterranean Sea and when life in that sea began to die within a few days, the connection was made to the original occurrence. Tensions, which were already frayed throughout the world, heightened quickly. But everything changed when the discovery was made by the scientific community that the objects which had landed in both areas were alien in origin.

As we passed the housing units, at first mostly apartment towers like my own, generously spaced with well-maintained recreation areas connected by simple two-lane roads for motorized vehicles, and spacious non-motorized lanes for all other traffic, I felt some of my anxiety start to ease. But as we approached the center of the city with its single family dwellings housing the New Leadership, I again felt my stomach begin to knot with the realization of the responsibility of the task I was about to begin.

Within weeks of the discovery that the objects were extraterrestrial, another half a dozen objects splashed down in the larger fresh water bodies on the planet. Despite the immediate unification of all the astronomical organizations throughout the world, the source of the objects could not be traced. When even larger objects struck the seven oceans over the course of one terrifying weekend, it was clear that our enemy was bent on an attack focused on both our water and food systems in one fell swoop. 

Despite the severity and effectiveness of this strategy, the nations of the world rallied. All the resources that had once been focused on war were now directed towards this crisis of the seas as the popular press named it. And when three months passed without any further water attacks, a global sigh of relief rolled across the planet.

How much of what I knew, of what was taught to the masses, would be confirmed and how much contradicted? While so much time hadn't passed that there wasn't ample, direct evidence of the major events of The Reclamation, there was still the occasional story that would make its way through our communication system that unveiled a bit of information, be it story or artifact, that differed from the mainstream perceptions that we all knew. As a member of the communication industry, I was aware more than most people, but I generally found little interesting dialog among my friends and colleagues. The reality of what had occurred was so self evident, so widespread, and the effort and resources that had been and were still required to move humanity forward so time consuming that these stories were treated as little more that oddities which served as minor diversions.

Over the course of one's life, there are a few times when everyone can remember where they were when certain events took place. On that fateful day in March, virtually every human on earth remembered their exact location and activity. The attack was ferocious in its intensity and planet wide in its scope. The weapons were not atomic but the barrage was incessant. Within twelve hours, the world's financial and political centers were leveled. Where the crisis of the seas appeared to attempt capitulation by striking at the water and food sources, this stage appeared to be an attempt to remove the leadership and business minds of our societies.

Yet, again we regrouped. Some credited the military leaders who created a chain of command where power wasn't the object, but where decision making, organization and the flow of those decisions through the system became the focus of all. Others praised the religious leaders of the world who put aside their philosophical differences and found one voice to both give comfort to those who had survived and an inspiration that galvanized the human race's determination. Still others felt that it was the simple fact that we now knew who was attempting our extinction; not only were the spaceships now visible daily in the skies above, but one of the attackers had been captured and his visage reproduced in all manner of communications that still functioned.

As the limo began to slow, I saw that a path ahead had been cleared in the normal rush hour traffic. The driver eased the vehicle between the first few law enforcement vehicles that were creating this path, then we steadily sped through the opening towards the Library. Suddenly, we were there, the door was open and I was being escorted past rows of my fellow communication specialists towards the massive doors of the Library. I heard a few familiar voices call out my name but saw no faces in the crowd.

The final stage of the attack came as suddenly as the middle stage had ended. Again, like the interval between the first two stages, enough time had passed so that a tiny sense of hope had begun to grow. The psychology of the process with its carefully choreographed lulls sandwiched between relentless fury, came astonishingly close to breaking the spirit of our species. 

While some of the biggest population centers had been spared the second attack, the scattered leadership of the world, in anticipation of an attack on those centers, had ordered a disbursement of the remaining population. Even more amazing than the fact that the message to "spread out" got through was the way the people of earth regrouped into bands of population that were totally unique when compared to those before the Great War. These new groups were not constrained by nationality, religion, race or income. People came together for reasons based solely on survival. Diversity in all phases of human achievement featuring a range of skills both mental and physical made up these groupings. Men and women working together without regard to all the xenophobic concepts that had previously ruled the day. It was a horrendous time but an inspirational reaction.

At the top of the steps I could see the Commissioner of Communications, smiling as I approached. It was he who had called me into his office and had asked me if I would consider this historic assignment. Now, he took me by the arm and led me through the Library's doors. When they closed behind me, the cacophony of the street scene was instantly replaced by a penetrating silence and I again felt the nervousness in my stomach. As we crossed the cavernous entryway, I was aware of the clicking of our shoes on the polished floors and their echo off the walls decorated with pictures of the people and events of the past seventy years.

"Shall we go right to the Archives?

Like at our first and only meeting concerning my access to the Archives, the Commissioner moved right to the point. I nodded my assent. We passed through a number of doorways, some which required the Commissioner to type in a security code, some with only silent but watchful guards. I never had much of a sense of direction, so it didn't take long for me to feel disoriented.

The final stage was initially not even recognized by the survivors as a stage of attack at all. It was widely perceived by the remaining population and leadership that the attack had been repulsed. Worldwide groupings that had been born out of necessity were still being reorganized into "countries" although far less than before the invasion. These new countries were more like states within the old United States in that there were differences between these countries but one overriding vein of unity. 

Just as Patrick Henry had first uttered the unifying phrase, I am not a Virginian but an American, we were no longer French or Chinese or American, we were earthlings. But then people began dying again. So random, so unrelated, that no one noticed or connected the dots. It took fully 2 years before the reality behind the deaths were realized and the announcement was made that the slaughter was the work of the aliens.

"Am I the only one outside the Circle of Elders to know about this?", I asked. 

The Commissioner pushed away from his desk and walked over to a small, wooden table tucked into the corner of the room. He removed a folder and brought it back to the desk.

"Open it", he said.

The folder was not very thick, perhaps a half dozen or so papers were inside it. Each had a small 2 inch square picture at the left hand corner and a few paragraphs detailing the biographies of each person pictured. I recognized all the names and was even acquainted with two of them. They were the icons of the communications industry. Each was known throughout the world for a particular accomplishment, all were revered for their ability to keep the people informed during a time when news, particularly news of the early days of the Reclamation was like a salve to humankind as we fought to avoid extinction.

"When the Plan was in its infancy" began the Commissioner, "debate was fierce on both sides of the issue. The greatest minds, most powerful leaders, and deepest thinkers of the world debated for almost two years just to decide to implement its details. The few remaining records of these debates indicate that just as it appeared that the Plan would be scuttled, the War in the Middle East began. Within two months of the start of this conflict, the Plan was approved unanimously. It had become clear that without this drastic step, there would be no returning from the destruction that the warring nations had begun. Yet still, one final amendment was added. At this time, we believe this last detail helped these great men and women sign off on what they knew was a death sentence to so many of their fellow humans. A way to link the future to their decision so they could feel comfortable knowing that it could be stopped if the succeeding generations decided it should end. 

So it was agreed that every 10 years, someone outside the Circle of Elders, someone trusted unquestionably by the people still alive, would have access to the Archives. As you now know, the Archives were virtually complete within the first few years of the beginning of the Plan. The story you have known all your life, the story all remaining humans then and now have been taught was just that, a story. And, of course, to make sure that the person chosen to receive this honor was truly universally trusted, events were directed by the Circle to help build and maintain the status of these people precisely so they would be in a position to be believed should they decide to reveal the truth."

I closed the folder. The watershed moments of my life flashed through my mind. I was suddenly aware of the connections of these events, as if I had lived my life with blinders.

I looked up at the Commissioner to find a sympathetic smile and a nod. 

 "It is now your turn to decide. If you choose to, we will announce a world communications conference on the day of your choosing and provide you with whatever documents you wish to make public. We understand it is an incredible decision and not at easy one with which to wrestle. But we can only provide you with seven days to decide. It is the Plan's directive, delineated in that last amendment".

So now, I stand before my reflection in the mirror. Tomorrow is the seventh day. I see the wisdom of the seven day decision cycle as I don't think I could survive a longer time limit. Sleep had become a welcome respite from the enormity of the decision but now, even my sleep has been invaded by visions of what has been and what might become again.

The truth has always been the goal of all great communications men and women. Whether that truth was hand-written on parchment, tapped out on typewriters, mass printed on rolls of newspaper or instantly transmitted electronically through the ether, the truth was always our goal. 

And now, I knew the truth, the awful truth: that it was through lies and controlled death and destruction that humans had finally achieved the greatest time of peace and prosperity ever known on earth. Great men and women before me had developed the Plan, the idols of my youth and my profession had remained silent when presented with this truth. When mankind feared the worst, that they might destroy each other out of a lust for power and money, they decided to use that very destruction as a tool to unite the men of earth by staging an alien invasion. They condemned billions of individuals to die to save humanity as a whole.

I have always maintained, both in my personal and professional life that people were inherently good and that given the choice they would invariably make right choice. Did I dare take this great risk to prove my beliefs? 

I looked up at my reflection. What should I do?

What would you do?

Sunday, June 6, 2010

More on the Big Slick

I sent the following letter to the Phila Inquirer this past week after reading a column on who is to blame for the spill in Monday's paper. The author, Charles Krauthammer, while saying that BP was to blame for the actual spill, spent most of the column blaming democrats and the environmental movement for the spill.

In the meantime, as the week progressed, there was more criticism of President Obama for not being mad enough about this horrible disaster. In my letter, I also criticized our president, but not because he isn't jumping up and down having a hissy fit or swearing, or demonstrating his anger in some emotional outburst. I don't understand how that would help. We just had 8 years of a president who flew by the seat of his pants and made decisions based on his gut. Look where that got us! As I said in my letter, I want the president to go on national TV, tell us the state of deep water oil drilling (like how many are there and how much oil we get from them). Maybe name some names, such as who were the government regulators who didn't do their job, who they interacted with and who at BP gave the orders that lead up to the explosion. 

But then, most importantly, tell us what we have to do to get off the oil addiction. What do we need to do, each one of us, to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Challenge us. Be presidential...and willing to lose the next election by telling us what we need to hear, and need to do. 

To the editor: Mr. Krauthammer asks an extremely poignant question in this week's column, "Many to blame for oil spill". Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water for oil in the first place? Unfortunately, his answers leave much to be desired. It is simple, sir. Rather than spending the last 30 years weaning ourselves from fossil fuels in general and oil in particular, we chose to increase our dependence on these finite sources of energy. Starting with President Reagan (does anyone remember him unceremoniously removing the solar panels from the White House after then President Carter practically begged us to kick our oil habit), we ignored our ever growing dependence on energy from unfriendly sources, pretended that the changing climate was unrelated to the release of carbon into the atmosphere, and discounted the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars that we wasted on wars to maintain our habit. 

Think about it. Less than 10 years after President Kennedy challenged the scientific community to land a man on the moon, it was done, yet here we are, almost 30 years after the oil embargo of the 70's and we are worse off than before. I do agree with one point made by Mr. Krauthammer; President Obama does share some of the blame. Like all of the presidents since Reagan, he lacks the political will to tell the American people, enough is enough. Rather than being presidential and challenging us to face our damaging dependency, he has chosen a course of conciliation with the powers that represent the status-quo, and which encourages us, the American people, to continue to live our lives waiting for someone else to step up to the plate instead of the person each of us sees in the mirror everyday.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Tender Hearts - Wider Perspective

I was recently listening to NPR (if you don't tune into that channel every once in a while, you may want to try it) and heard an interview with an author who had written a book about his grandson who was autistic. The comment which stuck with me was the recounting of an exchange between the author and his grandson. The author asked the autistic child if he thought he was different from the other children and the child responded yes. When asked how, his response was that he felt he was kinder than most other kids. The author went on to explain that his grandson didn't understand why so many kids were mean, not just to him but to each other as well. The author went on to describe this trait as that of having a tender heart.

For me, I always interpreted a lack of meanness, or in my viewpoint, a tolerance of others, as a result of a wider perspective. I guess I considered it more a mental construct than an emotional one as I viewed emotion in the context of sometimes blinding a person to the logical or rational.

Duly humbled, let me just say this. Regardless of the source, whether you practice random acts of kindness out of an emotional empathy or because you have reasoned that doing good adds to the positive energy slate and doing bad the negative, or just because you are aware of all those less fortunate than yourself and, in thankfulness that you have advantages, you choose to share them with those less fortunate, isn't the world better for it?

Really, don't we need to strive towards treating all people, not just those that agree with us or share our perspectives, as we want to be treated? I am not a Beatles fanatic like some of my age group, but what if they were right when they said that (and I may be paraphrasing here), in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you made. If we are graded at the pearly gates on just that criteria, how would you fare?

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Time for Passion

I have heard it said that liberals in general, and compared to today's tea party movement in particular, are not passionate enough about their positions and beliefs. My stock answer has always been that a thoughtful and well reasoned position considers all viewpoints before reaching a conclusion and allows for a change of mind when facts are encountered that prove the original viewpoint incorrect. Conversely, a passionate perspective is often based on emotion, a feeling, or a faith in something not provable with logic. It can be unshakable and uplifting when correct but blind to information that contradicts its veracity. At least for today however, I will toss away the constraints of reason. 

I AM MAD. Actually, outraged would be a better word. Outraged that more than 5 weeks have passed since the explosion on the deep sea drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent release of literally millions of gallons of oil into the water. Outraged that BP would ever place profit above the lives of those working on that rig, above the lives of millions of sea creatures and above the livelihood of thousand of Americans who are dependent on the sea. And I am mad at our president, not because I believe it is his fault, but because he has missed an opportunity to talk to us, on national TV. To tell us how many other deep sea rigs are in use today. To tell us how the regulators we depended on to defend our interests against the oil giants failed at this responsibility. To tell us that he will not rest until the leak is capped and accountability is determined. To assure us that this will never happen again, even if he has to close down all those deep sea wells until their safety is assured. And to ask us to redouble our efforts to conserve gas by car pooling, bicycling, walking, using mass transit and yes, driving a bit slower which he would then mandate by reducing the speed limit on our highways to 55 MPH.

And I am mad at the republicans who have the audacity to try to deflect the blame being accorded to BP as if they don't know that we just spent the first 8 years of the new century with a "business is great" president and a "big oil is the greatest" vice president. As if they don't know that the problem with the regulations is the regulators who weren't doing their job, or worse, were acting under the assumption that they weren't supposed to do their job. And while I am at it, I am mad at the Supreme Court for their decision a few months ago which seemingly granted the right of individuals to corporations. Gee, do you think that more or less influence will be heaped upon our representatives by special interests whose only concern is that their company gets a tax break or a loosening of regulations? 

And I am especially mad at those driving the economy of this country. People who have been fortunate enough to have been born with great intelligence, superior knowledge of business and economic influences and who used those gifts to make as much money as they could for themselves to the detriment of everyone else. I can't help but wonder how anyone who makes such decisions can sleep at night. Is that all they have gleaned from their life, that money and possessions is all that matters? The Scrooges of our times. 

But I am most mad at my fellow citizens who are clearly not interested in the ecological catastrophe that is taking place. Where are the protests and boycotts of BP products? When I recently drove to New York City on I-78, I set my cruise control on 65 and watched in dismay as I was passed continuously, sometimes on the left and right, by my fellow travelers. Even people with PA Wildlife license plates whizzed be me. I am mad at them for handing over their money to the sharks, demanding that they produce double digit returns and then acting shocked when the hedge fund managers had to make up financial instruments to satisfy that demand and who consequently created nothing more than gigantic Ponzi schemes which they then bet against! We created the monster to feed our own greed and are paying the price for this deal. 

But more than anything I am mad at Americans for taking their democracy for granted. Less than 60% voter turnout at the last presidential election! Perhaps 35% turnout at the recent round of primaries! Wake up!! This is your government. There are people being killed in other countries as they fight for the right to vote, American men and women dying to defend our rights and you don't have the time to vote every four years!! I don't know who first said this but you get the government you deserve. We are neck deep in a situation where corporation bottom lines trump their responsibility to provide Americans with livable wages and safe products and our government oversight regulators have traded their responsibility to intervene on our behalf for sporting event tickets and vacations in the Bahamas. So, which is it? Are we disillusioned that our individual actions can't make a difference or do we just not care anymore?

Sunday, May 9, 2010

The Tea Party

In the past week or so, I have sent two letters, one to my local paper and one to the Philadelphia Inquirer, concerning the tea party movement. The first was in response to a letter in my local paper, the Perkasie News Herald, written by someone in support of the tea party movement. 

It can be viewed by accessing the www.montgomerynews.com website, clicking on the Perkasie News Herald icon and going to the opinion section of the April 28th edition. The second letter was written by two gentlemen, one of whom is Newt Gingrich. It was on the opinion page of the Inquirer on May third. My response letter to the Inquirer was not published while my response letter to the News Herald was published in the May 5th edition. I have included both response letters below.

Of course, I understand the anger of the tea party members. Uncertain economic conditions always result in dissatisfaction with the government in charge. The problem is that the recession began during the previous administration. And while it certainly worsened for the first year of Obama's term, there are now signs that the economy is slowly improving. If you are going to assign blame or praise to the president for our economy's condition then don't you have to now give credit where you previously gave blame?

There is also much talk in the movement about deficit spending. Certainly, yearly deficits cannot continue to top $1 trillion per year. But tax receipts always take a downturn in a recession. Our national deficit doubled during President Bush's eight years in the White House and would most likely be as large regardless of who had won in 2008. I say this with some confidence based on a quick look at how we are spending our tax dollars. 

If you can imagine federal expenditures as a pie chart, by far the biggest slices are monies spent on national defense, social security and Medicare. Until we are ready to seriously talk about reducing these areas of spending, deficits will continue to mount.

And then there is the link to the original tea party, taxes. Strangely, however, most of the middle class paid less federal taxes in 2009. I know that I did. The fact is, if we want to bridge the gap between receipts and expenses, and we don't want to reduce spending in the three biggest areas of expense, then don't we need to consider raising taxes? And if we must move in that direction, don't we need to raise taxes on people who are in the best position to give some more?

I would rather not have to raise taxes at all, but I don't understand a movement allegedly comprised of everyday, middle class working Americans who don't realize that their buying power has been eroded in the last few decades while the rich have seen a net increase in their worth. Am I wrong to wonder how the people with the most have been able to distract the people who are suffering because of the growing inequality of income? Am I delusional to think that perhaps the entire tea party movement is one big distraction engineered by the rich and powerful to keep the real problems off the table? Is the fact that it has been fully eighteen months since the near wall street collapse and we still don't have financial reform enough proof?

(Phila Inquirer) To the editor:

I am glad to hear that the tea party movement is moving towards participation in governance in addition to the oft seen public rallies and boisterous town hall meetings. Perhaps they will inspire the current Republican congressman and senators to do more than just say NO.

But when will the tea party movement present some substance to their protests. I read the column by Messrs Gingrich and Waldeck but all I saw was the same old window dressing; they support limited but effective government, reduced spending, lower taxes and a balanced budget. Without commenting on all these items, I believe that the last balanced budget was during President Clinton's administration.

Mr. Gingrich also makes a nice attempt to pretend that the tea party members won't support any party that doesn't produce results but the celebration over recent Republican political victories proves that the Republican party expects and is counting on the votes of the tea party members in the foreseeable future.

When the tea party movement provides some detailed suggestions to decrease spending in the three biggest (by far) government expenditure categories, defense, social security and Medicare, then perhaps they will have earned some sympathy.

(Perkasie News Herald) To the editor:

As a proud liberal let me offer an apology to James Moyer and all the other white people who feel that the liberal media has declared war on the white majority of this country. When we dismiss each other because we are different, or look for the worst in a group of people and judge that group based on those few individuals, we are wrong. 

For those who think that the majority of people involved in the Tea Party movement are racist just because they disagree with President Obama's policies, that is misguided. We should encourage all Americans to expresses their first amendment right to free speech and assembly. While I disagree with the target of the Tea Party's anger, I encourage them to participate in the discussion of the topics of the day. In a country where we are lucky to get 60% voting turnout for a presidential election and 35% for primaries, etc, we need more people to exercise their civic responsibilities and participate in our governance.

But respect must flow both ways. Mr. Moyer makes his opinions very clear when he describes the "leftist spoiled youth with daddy's credit card and a molotov cocktail", "hatchet-faced Code Pink-O's" and the "leftist loons on MSNBC". Mr. Moyer, they have every right to their opinions as the tea party movement; the disdain you feel for them is the same some liberals feel for those you support. The point is that neither of us should be using derogatory words to describe the other. It progresses the actual debate on the direction of our country not one iota.

So, when members of the tea party movement hold signs depicting President Obama as Hitler, we all should be offended. But if only members of the "liberal" media point out the horrid nature of these signs, those sign holders will only dismiss them as leftist loons. There needs to be a conservative voice to send the message that those signs are not appropriate.

As for the tea party itself, I have to ask; please define "we want our country back". It is a great applause line, but from whom do you want to take the country back? As far as I know, the current President and the democratic majority in Congress was voted there by the American people in the last few national elections. Are you trying to take it back from your fellow Americans?

Or perhaps the current lean of the country is too left for you. So is it the radical liberal agenda that you want to take it back from? The problem is that many liberals like myself do not consider the Obama Administration all that liberal. No public option in our health care reform legislation, increased off-shore drilling, continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In our minds, he is governing left of center at best, hardly radical liberal.

Unfortunately, then, some people are left to think that the tea party wants to take the country back from the minority races represented by our first African American President. And, again, while I would like to believe that that is a minority opinion, there is certainly those within the tea party movement who think this way. I saw the results of a recent survey among those calling themselves members of the tea party which indicated that a significant percentage still thought that President Obama was not born in this country. It is too easy to associate this delegitimization technique with the odious methods used to prevent Black Americans from voting in the 100 years from the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act.

Let me put it this way. The environmental movement is now mainstream. Tens of millions of Americans now think about recycling, conserving energy, protecting the environment. But certainly, within that movement there are fringe elements. If you don't want the liberal media to judge the entire tea party movement based on the "birthers" then you can't judge the environmental movement based on those members who throw buckets of blood on people with whom they do not agree.

So, what are the real issues that the tea party movement wishes to address? If not Mr. Moyer, I hope someone will send in letters in the coming weeks to detail these topics. I look forward to civil discourse and real debate on the issues as we try, hopefully together, to find answers to the problems of the day.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Elitism

When I first lost my job and began writing opinion letters to my local paper, I sent the following in response to an opinion letter submitted by Dr. Van Til. To read the gentleman's letter, you can go to www.montgomerynews.com and search for Dr. Van Til by name and you will see his letter commentary of Jan 27 or thereabouts.

What bothered me most about Dr. Van Til's opinion was the derogatory way that he referred to the advanced education that our president possesses. My limited studies of history reminds me that when certain authoritarian or totalitarian regimes take power, they invariably target the intellectuals of the country as they attempt to eliminate all thought that might run contrary to their new found power. It is an odd combination of traits that we face today, having a president who is more educated than the average person, a thinker. Generally, the educated often disagree with a government's policies yet here we have someone who appears to be trying to think things through and make choices that are good for America, not just today but in the future as well. Still, lets be wary of people who want to discourage thinking and be wary that our president doesn't fall victim to the powers of money that seem to prevent policies that will benefit the everyday citizen.

Dr. Van Til begins his column by claiming that President Obama does not know the definition of middle class and in fact, is not middle class himself, so therefore he can not possibly understand the daily problems of middle class families. Dr. Van Til then makes a reference to an "Ivy League ring or bias" in the president's speeches thereby labeling President Obama as an elite who, again, can't possibly understand middle class woes.

Let's dig a bit further then. If we are to define the middle class in terms of income, we might consider the middle 60% of incomes, with 20% below and 20% above, to be middle class. If we accept that formula, then income between $30,000-$90,000 per year might be a good place to start as defining the middle class. So the President's claim that he would not raise the taxes of anyone earning over $250,000 not only covers the middle class, it even goes beyond it. Sounds like he is focusing on the right income group to me. Of course Dr. Van Til is correct, the president's salary does not qualify him for middle class. How many senators would qualify for that distinction? How many members of Congress? How about you, Dr. Van Til? Should I dismiss your opinion on just that issue?

As for elite, according to the desk dictionary I have at home, "elite" is defined in 2 main ways. First, the best or most skilled members of a particular group. I would think that most people would not only be proud to be considered elite in their particular profession or career but would strive to be so and encourage their children to be so as well. 

It sounds like a good thing to me yet Dr. Van Til seems to suggest something sinister in President Obama being elite in that he has an Ivy League education. I guess Dr. Van Til is using the 2nd definition of elite, the one wïth the negative connotation; "a small, privileged group". 

So, yes, I guess anyone with an Ivy League education could be considered a member of a small group, just as anyone with a doctorate (as I assume Dr. Van Til has) could be considered as elitist as well. I would think that Dr. Van Til worked hard to attain his doctorate and is proud of his accomplishments yet he would have us think that President Obama should not be equally as proud and that we should hold it against him somehow. 

This is especially interesting when we consider that our former President, George W. Bush attended Yale. I don't recall him being called elite. Do you really believe that he had any inkling of middle class problems as compared to President Obama who worked his way up from the middle class to achieve his "elite" status? I would certainly consider the former president much more a member of "a small, privileged group" than our current president.

If fact, now that I think of it, I would imagine that the citizens of our country, both before independence and afterwards, thought of the founding fathers as the elite of their time. They were the business leaders and land owners of the day. Most were highly educated, many in England. 

Do you really think that the middle class of the 1700's had the time and depth of thought to have developed the Declaration Of Independence? No, it took the "best and most skilled members" of that time to craft such an incredible document. 

I for one, want my elected officials to be elite in that they are the best people in terms of intelligence, forethought and sympathy for their fellow citizens. If we are electing people who are only elite in that they are richer and more privileged than ourselves, then perhaps we need to do a better job in the voting booth. They are not self-appointed as Dr. Van Til indicates as a reason for some of the current protests.

As for populism, I agree with Dr. Van Til that is defined in many strange ways. And while I did not research Dr. Van Til's examples of populist movements, I do know that governance by referendum or direct vote was not part of the founding fathers original plan. They knew that "popular" movements can make for poor policy which is why we have a representative form of government. They placed more faith that our legislatures would winnow out the good opinions from the bad and create just laws. 

It took dozens of years for women's suffrage to be granted. Was that a populist movement? If the men of the day had voted directly on granting the right would it have passed? When people took to the streets to protest the various wars that America has fought, were they populist? Did Dr. Van Til have as much sympathy for yesterday's anti-war protesters as he does for today's tea party demonstrators? I certainly applaud any citizen of this country who exercises their right to free speech and assembly, but let's not elevate the opinions of one populist movement over another just because we happen to agree with their position.

Strong, wise governance requires decisions that are sometimes unpopular. Clearly, the final word on the Obama Presidency is far from certain. He has not lived up to his word so far and it is right for all of us to express both our displeasure and support where it is warranted. But it has only been one year. Articles like Dr. Van Til's do nothing to move the conversation forward. It is easy to point fingers and disagree. How about some meaningful debate on how our elected officials can address the problems of the day.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

The Big Slick

By now, everyone is aware of the massive oil slick moving towards shore from the oil rig that exploded last week. In addition to the tragic loss of life, the ecological impact will most likely ripple through the economy for the remainder of the year. Not to mention the loss of sea life which will occur as a direct result. I know, you're thinking, "here goes another bleeding heart liberal about to attack the oil industry".

Perhaps. But is anything I have said so far inaccurate? There was loss of life. The economy will be effected, some more directly like the fishing and tourism industries of the area and some indirectly as the price of seafood increases. And, of course, the cost for cleanup incurred by both the federal and state governments (our tax money) and the oil company itself who may or may not pass along the cost to consumers. Obviously, we are not in a position to stop off shore oil drilling. One accident should not scare us from any activity, whether it is space exploration or the use of nuclear energy. But there does need to be an accountability when people die in the attempt. 

Has the technology which allows us to drill deeper and deeper into the ocean's depths outpaced our ability to do it safely? What actually went wrong here? Human error, or is the concept of this deep underwater drilling not thought completely through? If we are to continue to hang our economic future on the idea that we can provide for our own energy needs through expanded off shore drilling, don't we need to know if the drilling can be done safely? Eventually, there will be some conclusions drawn from this disaster as well as the mining disaster in West Virginia that took so many lives. The proponents of these types of energy sources will do well to become a part of the investigations if they expect everyday Americans to continue to support them. And yes, they will probably take some lumps and be castigated by those who do not support these sources of energy but that is part and parcel to advocating a policy or process that occasionally fails and results in death and destruction. Risk and reward. 

For me, it seems more and more obvious that we need to change our dependence on fossil fuels. We are more dependent on foreign sources for our energy than 30 years ago. In my opinion, all 30 years featured pro-business Presidents, including President Clinton. I believe that this nod towards the existing business mind set prevented our country to look into the future and begin investing in energy sources that were cleaner, safer and more sustainable. Yes, it may have resulted in higher energy prices. Perhaps we might be paying $5 or more per gallon of gas like much of Europe. But also, perhaps, we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years. Perhaps we would be getting 30, 40 even 50 percent of our energy from cleaner sources. Perhaps we wouldn't be forced to put safety aside to obtain our energy but could have a combination of energy sources including wind, steam, nuclear, coal, oil and solar. A balance.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Arizona and Immigration

I don't live in Arizona nor do I live in any border states where illegal immigration is an issue. I think that is something that people commenting on this issue should divulge before they comment on it. This is not to say that people who are not experiencing the direct problem should not have an opinion or should not have the right to express it, but I do think that it is important that full disclosure should be maintained when opinions are expressed. Since immigration is supposed to be the topic of this blog, I will only say one more thing about disclosure; perhaps if there was more disclosure by our politicians as to how they are making their living outside of the halls of Congress and more disclosure by some of our more vocal pundits as to how profitable and rich their opinions are making them, and where this profit is coming from, perhaps both their various stances on certain legislation and perceptions about certain topics would be better understood. More later.

Anyone who has been following the news recently is aware of a new law in Arizona that allows law enforcement personnel to ask for proof of citizenship from anyone they think might be illegally staying in this country. Since this law was created by Arizona, most people would understand this to mean that people of Mexican heritage are the main targets of the law. I don't think they are looking to apply it to Canadians. Unfortunately, Arizona is home to a large percentage of Mexican Americans, and other people of a skin color that is not white. While I saw the governor of Arizona say that there would be some type of training provided for those attempting to enforce the law, I have to think that this training will have to center on HOW ask for the proper papers as opposed to whom to ask. It is a shame that many police officers in Arizona will now find their already difficult job made more difficult as they try to guess who is legal and who isn't.

So, how do you ask an American citizen to provide proof of their citizenship because they happen to look like an illegal immigrant? Since I not only do not live in Arizona but would probably not be mistaken for Mexican, I can't imagine how this would work. Nor can I imagine how I would feel if the next time I was in my local Burger King using their free Internet, a police officer asked me to prove I was not downloading pornography because a significant percentage of white males in this country engage in that activity. OK, so maybe not a good analogy. How about this one? It seems to be the same conservative, right leaning people that are currently demonstrating in the streets against the government's forays into our private lives are OK with that same government using a guilty until proven innocence approach to the immigration issue. The same people who paint a Hitler mustache on our president our OK with Arizona utilizing a technique right out of the Nazi playbook. (Imagine here a German soldier asking for your papers in any of those WWII allied resistance movies).

America used to be proud of its melting pot status. You know, give me your poor, your tired huddled masses... It is on the Statue of Liberty. So often I hear people say that proof of America's greatness is the fact that so many people want to come here. So, do we want them to come or not? The fact is, we are all immigrants to this country at some point in our genealogy. (My apologies to any American Indians who might be reading this, present company excepted for you). When our ancestors came here, whether 2, 5 or 10 generations ago, chances are they were not welcomed by those already here. Yes, I know they all mostly came over legally on a boat. But they were as desperate and anxious to start a new life as those who come across the border now. If you don't think that in that desperation and hope that some of our ancestors might not have taken a short cut if they could have walked here, you might want to think again. Just like some of our ancestors came to America and caused trouble (I am of Italian ancestry so I can say Mafia here), some of today's immigrants are trouble makers and should be returned from whence them came. But, just like the vast majority of our ancestors came to this country for the right reasons, so do most of today's immigrants come to America. To better their lives and to establish a better life for their children.

Perhaps someone can help me here. When a person is arrested, don't the police have an ability to determine if that person is a citizen or not? Doesn't the "processing" of a suspect include checking for priors (like on Barney Miller), and fingerprinting them. Don't they ask for a social security number? I would like to think that something is done at that point that would establish that this person is not a citizen. If so, then couldn't that be the beginning of the process of deportation? Again, perhaps I am oversimplifying the process, but I am looking for something that upholds our tradition (and constitution) that says innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until papers provided.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Birth Lottery

Congratulations! You have won the lottery!

Don't worry, this is not a communication from Africa which will require you to provide me with your checking account information. And not one of those lotteries where you win a chance to win something if you spend a few thousand dollars. You have actually won.

I read two magazines on a regular basis. The Smithsonian and National Geographic. This months' Geographic is devoted exclusively to Water. I would recommend reading any issue of either magazine but if you have access to a paper copy or would want to read it online, spend some time on the April Geographic.

As presented by the issue, think about these numbers:

46% of the homes in the world do not have water access inside the home

900 million people on earth do not have access to clean water

2.5 billion people on earth have no way to dispose of human waste safely

3.3 million people, mostly children, die each year due to the effects of dirty water, the lack of a toilet and proper hygiene

In places where potable water is not as easy as turning on the faucet or stopping at the local supermarket for a bottle of water, the job of fetching water (and not necessarily drinkable water) falls almost exclusively on woman. This point was illustrated by the writer who spent a morning with a woman who lives in Ethiopia. She spends hours each and every day walking miles to the nearest source of water. While she is away, her four year old son babysits his two younger siblings.

So, what exactly did these people do to deserve being born into societies that are without clean water? Conversely, what did you and I do to earn birth into today's America? I am not sure where I first heard the phrase but the answer is that we won the birth lottery and they did not. The consciousness that is you was born into the body that you see in the mirror everyday, not because you did something special in your pre-birth years, not because your parents prayed for you in particular (although I am sure most of them are glad that "you" arrived). Not because god loves you more than anyone else (because if you go that route then does that mean that god does not love at all the people that are born into such difficult lives) but only because you won the birth lottery. And you think you never win anything!

So, what is the point of this blog? To make you feel guilty about your winnings? No, everything is relative and even knowing these facts doesn't make it much easier to deal with our own problems. Besides, I a firm believer that guilt is a waste of time.

Is it to encourage you to give up the material trappings of our modern age and go to the slums of the third world to help the poor? No, people like Mother Theresa were special precisely because they are unique. Hopefully, your sense of humanity will move you to help those less fortunate than you in your own way.

Is it a socialist plot to force you to hate all rich people who have the resources and could actually make a difference? No, despite my belief that the income inequity that has grown within this country and without in the last 30 years is a major problem, I respect people who are able to excel in any endeavor. I never had the gumption to start a business and risk it all so I try to limit my disparagements to the wanton excess of the rich not the ambition that made them successful.

No, the point is to get you to think about the randomness of life. Pure and simple, you have been given a special opportunity that you didn't earn. But it is an opportunity that you can prove worthy of. Make the most of it. But rather than pursuing material gains, pursuing wealth, perhaps we should focus individually and collectively on creating a day when the losers of the birth lottery have clean water and access to proper human waste disposal. Or can spend their day growing food, or taking care of their children instead of hiking miles on end to scoop out some water from a muddy puddle. After all, perhaps today's winners of the birth lottery are tomorrow's losers.

Nuclear Weapons Use, further comment

I have been working a lot lately both inside our home and at my job which has limited my time on the computer. Also, my son is a senior in high school this year and we are facing the May 1st deadline to commit to a college in the fall. Fortunately, he has narrowed his choices to 2, but while he prefers one over another, the 2nd choice has offered a substantially better financial package. Consequently, we have had multiple contacts with both schools in the last 10 days. Despite this, I have been creating my next blog in my mind and hope to have it done in the next day or so.

My reason for today's brief post is to emphasize again that the use of a nuclear weapon for any reason, even in retaliation for an attack by an enemy is absurd. I refer to the recent volcano eruption in Iceland and subsequent worldwide problems this eruption has produced. For better or worse, humanity has become global in our relationships. In the case of the ash cloud that has vastly effected air travel, we are experiencing just how global we have become. In addition to the thousands of people that are stranded all over the world, there is millions of tons of food which has or will spoil either because it can not be placed on planes, or because it is not being brought to airports because the cold storage facilities are already filled to capacity. Also, when planes can't fly, UPS and Fedex can't transport packages either. Imagine all the business being delayed this past week because of missing goods and documents.

Now, consider the effect of the detonation of a nuclear weapon. In addition to the actual death and destruction of the unfortunate citizenry, the vast majority of whom probably had nothing to do with the cause for the weapon's use, there will be the debris cloud, similar to the ash cloud now floating over Europe but containing radioactive fallout as well. Remember, just because we drop a bomb on say, Iran, doesn't mean the mushroom cloud will only stay in the physical geography of that country. And the use of a nuclear weapon anywhere near our source of oil will create an incredibly detrimental effect on our energy systems.

Immediate death and destruction, far reaching medical problems induced by the release of radioactivity, economic failures, ecological disasters. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Nuclear Weapons

This past Monday, I sent a letter to the Phila Inquirer is response to a column by Charles Krauthammer in Monday's paper. Mr Krauthammer was bashing President Obama's nuclear weapon strategy from the standpoint that by removing the possibility that America would use a nuclear weapon to retaliate for an attack, the president has dropped the protective umbrella that our allies have assumed was the reason that no one has used a nuclear weapon so far. In other words, our potential use of nuclear weapons has acted as a deterrent, and has enabled many of our allies to not pursue their own development of these weapons. Now, since President Obama seems determined to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons on the earth and has indicated that he would only use a nuclear weapon in the most dire of situations, Mr Krauthammer believes that more countries will try to develop their own thereby making the world less safe. I sent the following letter

To the Editor:

Monday's column by Mr. Krauthammer, Folding America's umbrella, is another column by a radical right thinker who believes that America can actually use nuclear weapons in a retaliatory fashion to punish those who would do us harm. Perhaps Mr. Krauthammer should consult a scientist familiar with the destructive capability of today's nuclear weapons before he bandies about his outdated opinion that a nation could actually use one without harming itself and its allies. When will he realize that the use of nuclear weapons is no longer a viable threat to our enemies? Did this threat prevent 9/11? Does it keep Osama Bin Laden from planning new attacks? Has it prevented Iran or Korea from pursuing nuclear capabilities? More than once I have heard that our current enemies are different from the Russians of the Cold War Era in that these new attackers are eager for death; suicide is a way to salvation. If that is true then why would our use of nuclear weapons deter them from attacking?

Nuclear weapons need to be removed from this planet. No one will win a nuclear war. Blasting parts of the middle east to kingdom come will bring about economic and environmental catastrophe for all. I would rather a President who is naive for thinking that someday humankind might realize that killing each other is not the way for lasting peace on earth then a policy that relies on fear and the threat of complete destruction.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Popularity and the President

Almost 3 months ago, at the time when it looked like there may not be a health reform bill passed, I wrote the following letter to the Inquirer (it was not published) in response to a column written by Charles Krauthammer who postured that because President Obama's approval ratings had dipped below 50%, it was proof that he was too liberal for America as was his health care reform ideas.

We so often bemoan the fact that our politicians always seem to be running for office. That they only tell us what we want to hear. That they waffle and change their stance when the polls lean against them. Then we wonder why they tell us one thing and do another. Who can forget the first President George Bush who said "Read my lips, no new taxes". So when his Democratic opponent indicated that he might have to raise taxes, (and was painted as a typical tax and spend liberal), well, you know what happened. Of course, the first President Bush did raise taxes because the budget deficit had doubled during President Reagan's terms.

The lesson learned, honesty, at least in politics, is not the best policy, has certainly not been lost on those that run these high profile campaigns. Mature people know that sometimes the hard truth is necessary to avoid a harsher consequence. It seems that our electorate, that is you and me too, needs to mature a bit. Or maybe we just need someone to lie to us then, in one certainly short lived term, force the harsh truth upon us. While that president will be the least loved, history may proclaim him or her to be one of the best.


To the editor:

I always look forward to reading Mr. Krauthammer's weekly Monday column. Not because I agree with him (I rarely do) but because I believe it is important to stay open to the viewpoints of those who see things differently than myself. And I like to try to follow his spin as he attempts to justify his viewpoint of the world.

In the case of today's article, Mr. Krauthammer has concluded that because President Obama's approval ratings have dipped to just below 50%, it proves that he is too left for America. Interesting. At the beginning of Ronald Reagan's 2nd year his approval ratings were similar to President Obama's. By the beginning of Mr. Reagan's 3rd year, his ratings were even lower. Does this mean that, at that time, he was just too far right for America?

Perhaps, instead, the reality is that both presidents were faced with extremely difficult situations. Both had promised change, and America was unhappy that neither had been able to fix the problems within one year. In other words, America was then, and is now, a bit too impatient.

I'm sure that both Presidents Reagan and Obama would prefer to be popular. But effective governance is not just about earning popularity points. It is about making tough decisions regardless of opinion polls. My recollection is that Mr. Krauthammer never cared that former President George W. Bush had historically low popularity; in fact I am sure he labeled it proof that he was doing what was right and was true to his convictions.

Reforming health care is what is right. We are too great a nation to continue to keep our heads in the sand concerning the tens of millions of Americans who do not have proper access to quality health care. If finally getting this country moving in a direction where Americans don't go bankrupt due to medical bills, or don't have to choose between medical coverage and decent housing or healthy food, if putting the insurance companies on notice that pre-existing conditions are not an excuse for denying Americans access to our wonderful health care system, and that the almighty dollar is not more important than Americans' health and well-being, then I would unquestionably rather President Obama be right rather than popular.

I would like to think that Mr. Krauthammer would agree.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Death ... and Life

I have been fortunate in my 50+ years that I have not suffered the loss of anyone especially close to me. Yes, I experienced the loss of both of my grandmothers, each of whom I spent time with as a child, and I also lost a very dear aunt a number of years ago. But in terms of my wife, children, parents or siblings, all are alive and kicking.

Still, the recent deaths of my store manager of 10 years and the brother of my very special life long friend has brought the subject of death to the fore of my consciousness. Not so much in wondering is there life after death, or the whole heaven and hell debate, but in conjunction with the "death" 3 months ago of my job. It was that ending that inspired me to stop pretending that I would write someday, stop composing opinion letters, stories, essays in my head only, and to actually do it.

So I started writing letters to the Philadelphia Inquirer and to my local newspaper. I started work on 2 short stories which I had been writing in my head for the last 6 months. And I started a blog about the ups and downs of losing ones job, how if effects you and your family mentally as well as economically.

After one of my letters was published in the Inquirer, I was surprised to receive 5 responses from strangers and have maintained communication with two of those people in the interim. After two of my letters were published in the local paper, I made the bold move (certainly bold for me) of contacting the editor directly to thank her for publishing me and I even asked her to consider giving me a weekly column. That contact resulted in my blog, this blog, being directly linked to the paper's website so that my thoughts could be accessible to the public at large.

Which brings us to life. In my case, life must include writing. It is a part of who I am. Whether I am good at it or not, whether I ever get paid to write, whether people agree with or even enjoy what I write is not the issue. That I write is what is important. Perhaps for you it is music or painting, sculpture or dance. Maybe you just like to build things, useful or not. Or maybe you love languages or you enjoy spending time in your garden. Regardless of the pursuit, without consideration if it is practical or logical, don't wait for a death to remind you of its importance to you, or worse, realize only in death what was important in your life. 

Who knows, perhaps that is hell. Spending eternity wishing you had found the time engaged in the activity that enriches you.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Our Christian Founders

When I first lost my primary job in January, I started sending letters to both the Philadelphia Inquirer and my local paper, the Perkasie News Herald. As a reader of the Herald for many years, I was used to reading opinion letters and columns that generally leaned right in terms of political and social perspective. My viewpoints lean somewhat to the left so I was pleasantly surprised when the following letter, in response to a particularly "radical right" opinion column was published. Find below that letter.

To the editor:

Thanks for last week's article by Dr. Gary Scott Smith. While he clearly presented a viewpoint emphasizing the evidence that points to the founders' religious convictions as in concert with today's religious right, he did so without demonizing those who lean towards an historic viewpoint that suggests that the founders advocated a more secular outlook. While it would seem obvious that discussing religion and Christian values would be of a civil nature, I have seen far too many of these articles become heated and hate filled.

But there are some points that Dr. Smith does not emphasize, points which don't contradict the basic idea that the founders "maintained that morality depended on religion", but do remind us to always be aware of the context of those beliefs.

First, the founders were a product of their time. They were men of business, land owners, educated men. They had both monetary as well as moral reasons for advancing the idea of independence. Their new home was virtually a world away from England and presented them with opportunities without bounds. It was not God or Christian values they wished to remove from their new country, but the oppressive effects of a government supported religion. This was especially true for the Quakers among them.

Yet, despite their use of the noble and inspiring words "all men are created equal", the Christian values of the time defined all men in a much narrower way than we do today. We can call them devout Christians because they went to church regularly, prayed and read the bible, but women were not considered a part of the governing process and many of the founders owned slaves. 

Clearly, in today's society, their attitudes towards women and blacks would not be considered Christian and would certainly not be legal. In the intervening 234 years, we ran the American Indian from their land, almost exterminating them in the process. It took almost 150 years before women were even granted the right to vote. And as recently as 50 years ago, a proposed amendment to grant civil rights to blacks was fought against by the various Christian religions. I would certainly think that no one today would advocate the treatment of Indians, women or blacks that occurred in our history but in most cases the movements to correct this behavior were not well received by many of the Christian religions of the time, many quoting from the bible in the process.

Yes, the founders were a remarkable bunch. But not because they were Christian or deists or rationalists, but because they were able to merge their various religious perspectives and create a body of laws based on reason as well as morality. While they certainly believed in God, they also drew on the great intellectual writings of the day. And by specifically not endorsing any one religion they spoke volumes about the direction they wished the country to follow.

For me, the debate should not center around whether the country was founded as a Christian nation but should be more concerned as to whether we are advancing the vision of the founders by incorporating into our laws our evolving understanding of "all men are created equal".

Friday, April 2, 2010

A Radical Leftist President

During the presidential election cycle, I was listening to the conservative talk show radio hosts on pretty much a daily basis. One of their tried and true topics focused on the radical left agenda that Barack Obama would push if he should become our president. Since then, regardless of the topic, this radical left agenda theme has remained in force. 

As we approach the 15 month anniversary of his election, it is becoming more and more obvious that, while President Obama may be left of the "radical right" that is represented by these talk show radio hosts, his actions are center left at best. The reality is that President Obama's policies and decisions reflect his campaign promise to try to unite this country by incorporating ideas from the left and the right. Unfortunately, rather than paying attention to those decisions that one might label as coming from the right, actions such as the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and this past week's decision to allow increased off shore drilling, the radical right continue to throw around the S word, in their attempt to just say no to anything he proposes.

If I were president, on the other hand, the worst fears of those conservative talk show hosts might easily have come true. With apologies to those true radical left thinkers, here are a few of the policies I would have pushed as president.

1. Health care. The recently enacted health care reform bill might certainly be called a left originating concept, but it lacks a much needed public option. There is far too much profit embedded in today's health care system. As long as sick people are an impediment to insurance companies' bottom lines, we will always have issues with access to affordable health care. Yes, I am talking about a one payer system where the risk pool includes all Americans in one big group.

2. Gay marriage and don't ask don't tell (DADT). I would have signed an executive order revising DADT to it's none of your business (INOYB). As for gay marriage, rather than trying to change the constitution as the far right is trying, I would have honored our founders by emphasizing that all men are indeed created equal. Preventing one group of our citizens from marrying is a clear violation of our beliefs in guaranteeing the pursuit of happiness for all.

3. Legalization of marijuana and prostitution. While my pot smoking days are behind me, recreational drug use, including getting "high" in the privacy of one's home should not be illegal. Without using the easy comparison to alcohol, marijuana use in moderation by responsible adults will allow another legal outlet for stress relief. As for prostitution, legalizing and regulating this service would help reduce the disease and drug use that harms both the provider and user. And in both cases, legalization would allow our police officers to pursue real crime and save the taxpayers countless millions of dollars in court costs.

4. Reduction of the defense budget. For a country that does so much good in the world, we have recently become the bully of this planet. We manufacture and sell more weapons than any other country. We have invaded 2 countries and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistans in the last 7 years. We have standing troops in dozens of countries throughout the world, from Germany to Korea to the middle east. As president, I would immediately reduce the defense budget by 10% and use that money to promote infrastructure projects, through private industry, to help repair our aging bridges and highways, mass transit projects to help clear our highways and reduce our use of petroleum, and education reforms to address the fact that our children lag behind many of their European and Asian counterparts in math, science and reading.

5. And my favorite; salary cap for all. Well, not necessarily a cap, but a formula that allows for no employee to make more than 100 times the salary of any other employee in a given company, including the government. If a data entry clerk makes $30,000 a year, then the top salary would be $3,000,000 per year. If an exec wants to make $5 million dollars than he or she just has to make sure that the lowest paid salary in the organization is $50,000. Since the Reagan revolution that started what the first George Bush called voodoo economics, the trickle down theory of compensation has resulted in a steady increase of salary for the rich, the reduction of spending power for the middle class and an increase in the ranks of the poor. My simple math looks like this:

A company with 1000 employees has labor costs of $100 million dollars, or $100,000 per person. However, the 20 top execs (2%) are averaging $3 million (with the top guy making $5 million) which means the remaining 980 employees are splitting $40 million which works out to about $40,816 each. Good pay if you are single but tough if you are supporting a family of four. And again, that is the average of the remaining 980 people, many are making less. If the company, which I am sure often tells its employees that they are one big family and that through team effort they will all be successful, if that company were to pay those top 20 execs only $40 million (with the top guy making $3 million), an average of $2 million each, we now have $60 million to split with the rest of the "family". Those 980 employees will now average $61,224 each. Sounds like the rebirth of the middle class and reduction of the rolls of the poor, reduction of the government help programs, perhaps even reduction of the necessity of 2 and 3 income households. Gee, it almost sounds good for the American family. And the labor costs of the company didn't change one cent.

We are an extremely fortunate citizenry. Over 230 years ago, a group of businessmen, politicians and thinkers met in Philadelphia and hammered out a few documents that gave us 3 branches of government working together to act as a rudder. Should one lean too far in one direction, one of the other 2 rights the ship toward the center. And the truly amazing thing of it all is that each and every one of us has a say, a vote in which direction we go. My ideas, my vote would take us a bit more left. Perhaps yours will take us a bit more right. Express your opinion, make your thoughts known, VOTE and participate. The founders gave us a dynamic form of government but only we can provide the dynamic citizenry to deserve such vision.