Trayvon and George

I read an article in this past Sunday's Inquirer concerning the tragic death of Trayvon Martin and subsequent arrest of George Zimmerman.  This particular column was a direct poke at those "reverse racists" of our age, and those who are anti-gun ownership, and anti laws such as the "Stand Your Ground Law" that exists in Florida.

In the column, the writer cites various bits of information that might lead one to conclude that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self defense and should not have been arrested.  Of course, like all bits of information, it is common for someone wishing to make his/her point to only choose to emphasize that info that agrees with their position, or interpret the info available in a biased way.  So, in the case of the author's claim that Mr. Zimmerman had head wounds as a result of his confrontation with Mr. Martin, the author assumes that Mr. Zimmerman HAD to defend himself as he was losing the fight.  

The possibility that Mr. Martin may have attacked Mr. Zimmerman because he was afraid for his safety, or that Mr. Zimmerman may have started the fight specifically because he knew he was armed and was then more likely to be the victor, or simply that Mr. Zimmerman may have inflicted just as many wounds on Mr. Martin before shooting him, all evade the author.  What is really sad is that the author is a former state and federal prosecutor who seems to have unilaterally declared Mr. Zimmerman innocent before all the facts have been disclosed.  The very thing that upsets him the most, that Mr. Zimmerman has been painted as a hater, guilty of murder by those who see the facts in the light of their biases, drives the author to conclude the exact opposite.  His behavior mirrors those whom he disparages for their knee jerk reaction. 

Sadly, while both sides choose to defame the other, no one wants to discuss the very real problem of our national belief that might makes right.  In our personal relationships, we assume that "victims" will always use their guns responsibly.  In our international relationships, we assume that our killing is justified even when those that are dying are innocent of the crimes of their government. 

When killing the bad guy is our yardstick, then we first must paint the newly dead as "bad".  Trayvon Martin must have been guilty of something or he wouldn't have been killed in self defense.  The fact that, perhaps, neither person involved in this tragedy was "bad", seems beside the point.  We need to paint someone as the bad guy so we can justify our love affair with violence as the solution to our problems.

Since the Inquirer, when they publish letters, do so only when the letter is short, I condensed my thoughts into the following response.

To the Editor:

I would like to add a few more questions for George Parry to consider after reading his latest column. What prompted Mr. Zimmerman to consider Mr. Martin a suspicious character worthy of following? Did Mr. Martin act in self defense (his side of the stand your ground mentality) in response to being followed by Mr. Zimmerman? Did Mr. Martin know Mr. Zimmerman was armed? Did Mr. Zimmerman's injuries come as a result of his aggression towards Mr. Martin?

Mr. Parry is correct in suggesting that much evidence remains to be disclosed. Only two people really know what happened that night, but unfortunately, one side of the conversation will never be heard. The arrest of Mr. Zimmerman seems to be the logical result of a tragic death with so many unanswered questions. As a former state and federal prosecutor one would expect Mr. Parry to see the difference between "racist hysteria" and a desire for justice and truth in regard to this awful situation. The truly sad aspect of this story is that it appears that two law abiding citizens were placed in a difficult situation because of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law which encourages its citizens to use violence first, logic, restraint, and compassion second.

The Debate

In honor of the progress that has been made in the past 50 years, and as a reminder to those that have used religion to suppress the rights of minorities of all races, creeds and preferences, I re-submit a story I wrote a few years back which described the struggle surrounding another, perhaps future debate regarding rights, in this case marriage rights.


                                         The Debate

The debate had raged in the streets and in the Senate for the past 6 months. Parties on both sides of the issue had dusted off their tried and true arguments while painting the position of the other side in as unflattering a picture as possible.

While the specific point of the law was new, the nature of its meaning was as old as humankind itself. Those in favor cited progress, the evolving nature of society, compassion for everyone and the obvious as well as hidden discrimination that the law would eliminate. Those against the pending law cited tradition, values and the very real possibility of the end of the human race.

On Intervision, from the driest of business shows right on down to the trashiest talk shows, representatives from both sides of the issue could be seen on a daily basis, sometimes cajoling, sometimes imploring the viewing public that the bill must or must not be defeated. Every institution had weighed in, every level of political agenda was heard from, every citizen-based organization was involved. Finally, after 6 months of posturing and propaganda it was decided that today’s session in the Senate, in the presence of the world ruling counsel and with what was expected to be the most watched Intervision broadcast on record, a decision would be rendered.

At 10:00 the Senate was called to order.

The pending law was read aloud, simultaneously translated into all the languages of all the world’s peoples. Immediately, both sides as represented in the Senate scrambled to position their speakers in a beneficial sequence, as the tradition of alternating presentations would be followed. This pattern of speeches, one for, one against the new law, continued for 4 hours as was the custom. As the end of the 4 hours neared, tension in the room began to climb as did worldwide viewership of the preceding.

At exactly 2:00, the last speaker was cut off, her final words inaudible to both those in attendance and those on Intervision. All eyes turned to the seven members of the ruling counsel.

Surprisingly, counsel member #3 stood up. He was a very old Senator; in fact, his exact age was not completely known. He was not known for his speaking abilities; in fact, no one present could remember the last time he spoke publicly. But it was known that his influence was great and that his opinions, invariably made known behind closed doors, often ruled the day. The air was still, all eyes were upon him as his voice, quiet yet clear and strong, spoke these words.

“My fellow humans. Today we make a decision that will change the very course of human destiny. It is not a decision to take lightly but not unlike similar decisions made years ago by our predecessors. I know of what I am speaking because I was present for some of those momentous choices.”

Counsel member #3 paused. He looked at each of the other six ruling counselors, then gazed out at those in attendance, and finally his eyes locked on the nearest of the Intervision transmitters.

“Just as it was decided a dozen generations ago that marriage between the races of our world should be recognized, just as it was decided 2 generations ago that marriage within genders should be supported, now it should be our decision to pass this law legalizing marriage between sentient species.”

And so, in the year 2060, the people of earth and the beings of Vega officially became the first in the universe to legalize marriage between their inhabitants.

How great is the United States?

As an American citizen, I feel very fortunate to have been born in this country.  In virtually all the conversations I have with friends and family, this same sentiment is expressed.  On most talk shows, regardless of political persuasion, we count America as a great country.  In fact, one might even say that some of our most deepest disagreements revolve around how to continue our greatness.  Patriotism does not seem to be an issue in our country today, even when waving the flag is done in an attempt to prove one's politics or perspective is more patriotic than another's.

If we all love our country then, what exactly do we love about it? 

First and foremost, freedom.  Certainly our form of government allows for freedoms that are non-existent for those living in the various authoritarian and dictator lead countries in the world.  We can express our contempt for our government without fear of "disappearing" in the middle of the night.  We can demonstrate openly to have our grievances addressed.  We can choose to worship, or not worship, within the framework of any religion of our choosing.  We can even burn the very symbol of our country, the flag, if our passion against a particular injustice compels us to do so.

We are also proud of America and its accomplishments, both within our borders and as a global neighbor.  We believe, despite some occasional setbacks, that we represent good in the world.  We remind the world of the pivotal part we played in defeating evil during World War II, and our struggles since to bring our treasured form of government to the oppressed throughout the world.

One might even say that some of our problems are the result of our greatness.  Jealousy on the part of some can lead to a blind hatred resulting in terrorism, unprovoked attacks, and even the killing of Americas who are trying to help those who do the killing.  Desperate families seek freedom so deeply that they cross our borders illegally so they can give their children a life not possible in their home country. 

While it may not be our national slogan, it could be said that we have a storied history based on the presumption that anything is possible in America, both individually and collectively.

But greatness is a difficult trait to maintain for long periods of time.  And, despite my pride in my country, I wonder if we will be the first generation to fall short of that description.

It is always easier to rally the citizens to a common goal when the perceived threat is external.  World War II and most recently, the horrible events of 9/11 prove this point.  But how do we come to a solution for a problem that is internal.  When the problem is you and me?

The current debate over the health care reform legislation seems very curious to me from this perspective.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that most Americans believe that all of us should have access to health care, regardless of our ability to pay.  We know in our hearts that truly debilitating diseases, unforeseen disabling accidents, birth defects, and the difficulties of old age can bring any one of us to our knees, medically and financially.  We know that if we are serious about our perception that we do what is right, we cannot continue to have a system that allows our sick to become bankrupt at best, or to die through lack of means at worst.

Yet, our current debate is more about money than doing what is right.  We have concluded that we cannot allow the government to go bankrupt by providing health care so we must divert the burden to the citizens who are unfortunate enough to be struck with a serious health issue.  We have decided that rather than all of us take a hand in paying the price for an aging population and an inefficient health care system, we will let the chronically sick face their problems alone, and hope that our own family is spared their fate. Strangely, of course, we also know that if a huge number of Americans continue to go bankrupt, their unpaid medical bills will push providers, insurance companies, and eventually the government to the same fate.

Perhaps then, solving our health care crisis is our chance to prove we are as great as we imagine.  We should not be debating who will go bankrupt, the government or the citizens, but rather how we can pay for the health care that we all know we will require sometime in our lives or loved ones' lives.  We need this to be the challenge that marks our generation as great just as the victory in WWII marks that generation.  

The good news is that we are not threatened by some outside force, nation or idea.  In this case, we have met the enemy, and he is us.


            

Why are we so polarized?

Two items.

A TV ad for a Republican candidate, for Senate, I believe.  He claims to be pro-family and pro-life.  No comment on these as they say nothing.  Who is anti-family and anti-life?  His last comment was that if elected he would never vote to raise the debt limit.  Really?  So this gentleman, if elected, will vote for no budget regardless of who submits it as there is NO WAY we can have a balanced budget in the near future.  Even Rep Ryan's recent budget proposal has a projected deficit of $800 billion dollars for fiscal 2013.   The problem is that some voters will see this ad and say YEAH, I am voting for this guy.  Doesn't matter that his statement has no basis in reality.  

We get the government we deserve. Should we not demand political campaigns that actually discuss the issues?  In this case, what exactly will this Senator vote to cut?  Social security benefits?  Defense spending?   A quick glance at the details of our federal spending shows that we could cut ALL discretionary spending, and still not have a balanced budget.  Or we could spend ZERO money on defense, and still not have a balanced budget.

The reality is, we will continue to have deficit spending in this country until we face the hard truth that we need to devise a plan that cuts spending, increases revenue, and confronts the very real issues which are the result of an aging population.  We need cooperation, not confrontation. Less meaningless pledges and rhetoric, and more adult discussion and problem solving.  

Second item was a story about recent polls of New Jersey voters which reveal a small majority of support for Gov Christie so far.  They also support President Obama by a similar, small majority.  A GOP Governor and a Democratic president, both with positive reactions.  It suggests that fiscal conservatism resonates in even "blue" states, but that, perhaps, social conservatism, does not play as well.  So, if this is a reflection of more than just New Jersey, then why are there no candidates running with just such a platform?  (See my answer below)

A companion piece on Gov Christie suggested that he would be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.  (I assume that statement assumes an Obama victory in November).  Does that mean that an Obama victory will be the reality check that the Republican party needs to escape from its domination by its far right wing?  One could say that the nomination of Mitt Romney is the first step in that direction.  If Rick Santorum can't even win his own party's nomination, then clearly he could not have won in November.  So, the extreme "right" members of the party, the minority, have not "won".

And, despite what some Republican pundits might tell you, President Obama has governed much closer to the middle than his far left supporters were expecting.  So again, the extreme members of his party, the minority, did not get the administration they wanted, did not "win".

Many of my discussions about politics include the sentiment that while we are free to vote, we have limited choices of whom to vote for.  Choices driven by the two political parties, both of which are driven by a desire to win elections, not necessarily govern for the betterment of America.  Yet, my above observation suggests that neither party's "base" has the upper hand, and that a more moderate version of the man who won the 2008 election and a moderate republican nominee will be competing for the presidency in November.  Are they then, the candidates we deserve because they reflect the precise dichotomy of perspective that exists in America today? 

Will the winner in November then, be the candidate who strikes the best balance between the competing extremes of the electorate.  The candidate who is able to win the votes of the middle 20% of voters who reflect the attitude that neither party has all the answers, that neither party is 100% wrong or 100% right.  The candidate who might actually be the best choice, at this time, for the United States?  The candidate that neither the extreme left or right, which is after all, the source of all the polarization, supports wholeheartedly.  Perhaps then we do have two candidates whose core beliefs reflect a "conservative" approach to our fiscal problems mixed with a "liberal" perspective on our social issues.  Middle left and middle right, the exact place where the battle of paradigms and philosophies should take place.

Always the optimist!
       

Friend or foe?

I have often commented that is seems that some politicians, especially republicans at the moment since there is a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, consider the United States government as an obstacle to freedom.  I have often heard many Americans speak of our government in less than friendly terms, again, especially when their political perspective differs from those representing us.  Many have actually said that the government should not be considered a friend of the people.   Clearly, Uncle Sam is not universally looked upon as a benevolent relative.

Is this a recent phenomenon or have Americans always been wary of their government? 

I have read enough of our early history to know that our founders did not trust the institution of government.  The fact that they openly rebelled against the English crown is certain proof.  And the checks and balances that they embedded in the Constitution further illustrates their distrust.  No branch should be entrusted with too much power.  Further, one might say the founders didn't trust the people all that much either.  I believe many of them would be horrified at the prevalence of popular referendums to create laws.  The fact that the constitution specifies that the electoral college, not popular vote, decide presidential elections confirms this view and explains why we have had three presidents, most recently Geroge W. Bush, elected president without winning the popular vote.  

We seem to grant our government the authority to govern while keeping an eye open for indications that those in power are not serving the public, or worse, have become corrupt.  From that respect, I give full support for those who maintain that watchful eye, even when they are watching (and criticizing) a government that I support.

But is the government a friend when your party is in control and a foe when controlled by those you did not support?  Is that the definition we can conclude from the partisanship that embroils us today? 

How then can we divorce our personal likes and dislikes about the direction and policies of our government to objectively judge a particular administration or congress?

And, even more importantly, how do we marry our instinctual distrust for the government (or any authority figure) with the real need for laws and policies and programs that advance, improve and empower our nation?
  
If our form of government is based on those first three words of the Declaration of Independence, We the People, then is a distrust of government really a distrust of ourselves?

Ultimately, I believe we must consider our government our friend.  And like our friends, we should criticize, constructively, when we feel it has gone astray.  Through communications to our elected officials, public and private debates, and our precious right to vote, we tell our government we trust them, and are watching them as well. 

Like our friends in need, we support our government through the tough decisions when the right or wrong choice is not obvious or is not universally accepted.  As we treat our friends, we take our government's side when problems are revealed by those outside our circle, but work to correct those very same problems knowing that it is more important to get it right.

To me then, we MUST consider our government our friend because the only alternative is to treat it like the enemy. 

This does not mean unconditional trust.  But is does mean support even when your perspective is not shared completely by those we elected.  Certainly, criticize and seek to change what you consider wrong.  But find common ground as well, solutions that are shared rather than focusing on whose fault it is or how that side is wrong and your side is right.  Remember, our current government was chosen in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and does reflect the majority will.  Until the next election.

  

The Hunger Games

I saw the movie "Hunger Games" this past weekend. I have not read the books, so I don't know how true the movie is to the first book, but it was certainly an entertaining flick. Without getting too in-depth, the story is about a futuristic society that is "at peace", due to the ruthless governing from the Capitol which includes a yearly ritual in which one male, one female, from each of the 12 districts is chosen at random to compete to the death for all but one participant. As the truly creepy and malevolent President as played by Donald Sutherland says, they control the citizens by fear and hope. Fear of the military forces of the rulers, and hope that through the "games" someone each year can be victorious and gain all the riches and material comforts one can imagine.

Of course, there are parallels to today's world. The fact is, we also send our young into battle, to die, or worse, to return scarred for life. Yes, they volunteer now, but I doubt that when our children are signing those papers that commit them to military service, they are cognizant of the possible death or debilitating injury that may befall them. The young are invincible, and so we take advantage of that by promising "adventure" and skills for future employment. At least in this fictitious world, the one winner is showered with material pleasures although it is clear that one of the previous winners, portrayed by Woody Harrelson, is far from happy with his winnings. Still, so many of our soldiers come home to an unemployment rate double the rest of society, broken families and foreclosed homes, in addition to the mental anguish that war can create.

I was also struck by the name given to the selected individuals - tributes. Isn't that what we do when we want to demonize or make less than human our enemies? We call them japs or nazis, fanatics or zealots, godless or barbarians. Of course, they have names for us as well, very similar names, and so we continue the cycle of hate and war, and continue to educate our children to hate and kill as we were taught. In this case, tribute is used to emphasize the sacrificial side of the games, the fact that each district demonstrates their sorrow for past uprisings against the government by "voluntarily" choosing to send these children, these tributes.

As I watched the movie, it became obvious that the peace described as permeating the society was not peace at all, but a lack of war, the difference being that the people themselves were not at peace, were not happy with their lives, were not thriving as a people would be if they were truly free from the horrors of war. They were just unable to fight against the forces that enslaved them. In this sense, one might say that the movie was also a warning to those among us who think that man can create a world without conflict. That any utopia created by man may not be all that grand.

In any event, regardless of whether you have read the books, go see the Hunger Games for yourself.

Speaking of games, this past week there was an interesting trio of votes taken in the House of Representatives concerning the federal budget.

The first vote approved a GOP sponsored budget, 228-191. As there are currently 242 Republican house members, I assume that some voted against their own party's budget, perhaps some tea party members. I say this because the budget, while reducing the annual deficit from 2012 levels, still projects an $800 billion deficit for 2013, which will require another vote to raise the national debt. I think there are many in the tea party who want a balanced budget so will vote against anything not balanced. Our "local" reps, those from Pennsylvania and New Jersey voted along party lines.

The second vote rejected a Democratic budget, 163-262. This time it appears that some Democrats opposed their own budget. Perhaps because the Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires would be allowed to expire. (Tough to vote to raise taxes, even for those most well-off, in an election year). Again, all local reps voted along party lines.

Finally, there was a third vote. This vote failed miserably, 38-382. It was bipartisan in that this budget used a mix of tax increases and spending cuts which would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. It was patterned after the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. In this case, of the 38 yes votes, 6 came from local reps, 4 Dems, 2 GOP. My hat off to those brave individuals. So interesting, and so sad, that the one plan that required everyone to do their part, was so easily defeated. Are we that selfish that we can't see that only by finding common ground, by working together, can we solve our financial problems?

I don't necessarily blame the reps in this case. Their votes reflect both the national split on the solutions to our financial predicament, and the lack of respect for other's perspectives that one issue special interest groups help exacerbate. My way or the highway is a nice line in a movie but not a way to operate in a democracy.

So, the games surrounding our deficit and debt continued. And will continue as there is no chance that the Democratic controlled Senate will support the House GOP budget. It will probably never even get a vote.

The Supreme Court takes up Health Care Reform

It is official today. We had all four seasons this month with the below freezing temps this morning.  Funny that it took until after spring officially began to get a winter morning.  The summer weather we had last week was quite interesting.  I drove to work in my shorts and bare feet, changed into work clothes, then changed back to shorts for the drive home.  Can't recall doing that in March.

If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has begun debating the various challenges to the individual mandate section of the health care reform bill passed in Congress, and signed by the president two years ago. 

Interestingly, some other aspects of the reform package have already taken effect.  Young adults under the age of 26 can now be covered under their parents health insurance, pre-existing conditions can not be used to deny health care coverage to an applicant, certain preventive care procedures do not require a co-pay, and there are no longer lifetime monetary caps placed on health care benefits.  None of these have been challenged; in fact, I would think that the vast majority of people would agree that each is a good thing.  I guess the health care reform package was not completely unpopular or off base with the beliefs of most Americans.

The Supreme Court's ruling is expected in the summer.  If I were to predict the results, I expect a split decision, which would effectively reflect the views of Americans at large.  My gut feeling is that a number of rulings will be forthcoming, but the big decision on the mandate will be 5-4 upholding its constitutionality.  This, of course, will not be the last word.  Those in agreement with the decision will proclaim that the system has worked as designed by the founders with all three branches of government in agreement with the concept.  Those against the decision will decry the result as judicial activism and will vow to continue to fight the law and the ruling by bringing it back to the Congress and President, especially if the Senate or Presidency changes party in the fall.  Clearly, as is the case with the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision in the 1970's, this ruling will be challenged over and over again.

Curiously, many of those you see on TV everyday railing against the individual mandate have health care insurance. Certainly every Congressmen or Senator has not only one of the best health care packages but one that is priced to them under "market" value, if not altogether free. And anyone over 65 against the health care reforms is probably receiving their health care coverage via Medicare. 

Those people against government interference and participation in the health care industry who are receiving their coverage via a government agency may want to rethink their position. Or at least admit to themselves and us that they believe they have a right to health care provided via our tax dollars but that others do not.  Personally, I would like to see someone from either party propose a law eliminating the health care benefit for our elected officials, especially those in Washington. They generally have jobs outside their elected positions, let them get their insurance through their employers. Or on the open market where they will pay an individual premium based on their individual or family health history. Perhaps the conversation would be altered a bit.

The unfortunate thing is that this debate over health care, whether an individual mandate is constitutional or not, is not the debate we should be having.  We are an aging country.  How much are we aging?  My research indicates that the median age (the age where half the population is above and half below) has been increasing by 2 years every 10 years for the last 4 decades.  While this trend will not continue forever, it will continue until those born in the 50's and 60's, when the birth rate spiked producing the "baby boomer" generation, begin dying off.  In other words, we will continue to age, as a country for another 2 decades or so.  Additionally, we are living longer so while the percentage of the elderly in our nation will increase via the high birth rates of the 50's and 60's, these same people will live longer to boot. 

Whether we want to admit it or not, the longer we live, the higher chance of health issues, the higher cost of health care.  So, for those who think that the individual mandate will reduce the costs of health care, they are being naive.  As are those who think that a market solution will somehow lower costs.  Frankly, I don't believe there is any program that can be devised that will reduce the cost of health care.  The discussion should be focused on how we can best survive another 20 years of rising health care costs.  How much of our resources we are willing to allocate to the health of our aging citizens.  How we will change our priorities so we can provide the proper health care access and services to the generation born after World War II when America was full of promise and potential.

So, what are the real issues.

1.  Too many Americans without health insurance at all.

2.  Too many sick Americans who can't afford the insurance they need

3.  Too much money being spent on everything except actual health care.

Americans without health insurance cost America everyday.  Through emergency visits for health issues that could best be addressed by general practitioners, through missed sick days in the work force, through accumulating symptoms that end in debilitating disease that could have been treated earlier and cheaper.  Now, whether the cost of adding these people to the health care equation would be less or more than the savings resulting from reducing the extent of those occurrences is debatable.   What is not debatable is that the sickest Americans will certainly cost more to insure.  

But the question shouldn't be, what plan is the least expensive, should it?  Certainly, that shouldn't be the issue if we are serious about our claim to be a Christian nation.   Health care access and services defy the ability for the "market" to provide a solution because those with the most need will invariably have the least amount of resources to satisfy that need.  The poor get sick.  Probably more sick because by being economically disadvantaged they miss out on the benefits of preventive health care. 

So, if we assume that health care costs will increase because more people will be insured, including those previously uninsured because they were sick, is there enough money being spent in the health care industry that is not directly being spent on actual health care services.

Should some of the profit for health care insurers be sacrificed to help fill that gap?  Should certain medical professionals learn to live on a bit less income?  Should patients who are accidentally injured or even killed (not through malpractice but because humans sometimes make mistakes) be limited to compensation that is fair without being destructive to the health care provider or facility?  Should a lawyer's compensation be capped when a lawsuit is successful,  and conversely should a lawyer be responsible for the costs when a medical lawsuit is considered frivolous?   Should Americans who have decided to take any and all pills to correct any and all maladies then be allowed to seek huge damage claims when that particular medication results in a side effect that was clearly indicated on the bottle?  Should the pharmaceutical industry cover its costs for research on Parkinson's, breast cancer, HIV, ect, by making up diseases and then producing a pill to cure it.  Shift work disorder?  Restless leg?

I would like to think that if we all did our part, the pharmaceutical industry, lawyers, health care providers, health care insurance companies, and patients, if we all decided that access to the best health care system in the world for everyone guarantees us all the best health care in the world, then we would have the money to insure all Americans, sick as well as healthy. 

Finally, if nothing else is done, how about we do these two things.

Insure the health of all Americans based on the biggest pool possible; all Americans.  All 30 year olds pay the same premium for the same coverage.  As do all 50 year olds, etc.  One big pool determined by actuarials who already know the incidents of illness, death, etc via their work for life insurance companies.

Mandate that all Americans carry catastrophic health insurance.  This premium will be collected via a payroll tax, or through an unemployment check, or social security check, or IRS refund if needed.  But it must be placed in a lockbox where it is not used for anything but costs associated with someone whose resources exceed their ability to pay.  (See major mistake made with the Social Security Trust fund, as reference for what not to do).

Like it or not, disease does not care about one's politics, race, economic status or occupation.  Yet we seem to be embroiled in the discussion about health care as if these traits mattered.  It is not only a shame, but it reflects poorly on our claim to be the greatest country in the world.

The Blue Lake

I wrote the following story while still in college, almost 25 years ago, for a children's literature class I was taking.  As all good children's stories should have, there is a moral to the story which is hopefully presented in a simplistic way via likable characters that a child can relate to.  If you are a parent or grandparent, or anyone who reads to children and you would like to share this story, feel free.
----

                The Blue Lake

Once upon a time there were three young children, Manny, Edith and Fred. They lived in a poor village with their parents who loved them very much, and although the family did not have many possessions, they were very happy.

Everyday, the children played with the other boys and girls of the village, while their father worked in the woods with the other men, cutting down trees and carrying the wood back to the village. Sometimes their father saved small bits of wood and made little toys for the children to play with and share.

It so happened that in these woods there lived a fearsome dragon. It was fifteen feet tall and had two heads, each with glittering, razor-sharp rows of teeth. It also had a short, spiked tail, and large scaly hands and feet, each with long claws that could fell a tree in one swoop. Everyone in the village was afraid of this dragon, and there were many stories of people carried away by the loathsome creature, never to be seen again.

One sunshiny day, the children were playing tag in the village paths when the men came shouting and running from the woods.

“Help!” they cried and “it’s terrible, oh my!” All the children scurried home fearing the dragon would appear at any moment. When Manny, Edith, and Fred arrived at their house, they found their mother weeping by the window, gazing tearfully towards the woods. Two of the town’s elders were with her. They patted the children on their heads, and left with downcast eyes and saddened faces.

“Mother, mother, what’s wrong?” cried Edith. The children fell at their mother’s feet and she told them that the evil dragon had surprised the men at work, and captured their father in one of its enormous hands. Some of the men tried to rescue him, but the dragon was just too big and powerful to catch and subdue. The dreadful dragon escaped deep into the woods, still clutching the children’s father. They joined their mother in tears and cried themselves to sleep in their sadness.

When the sun arose the next day, the world looked brighter and the children were filled with hope.

“I’ll find that dragon’s lair and slay him”, declared Manny. So, off he went to the village blacksmith where he got a glorious sword and shield. Then he led Edith and Fred into the woods to find the dragon. After a few hours of searching, they spotted the dragon eating the leaves of tress and small bushes. Stealthily, they followed it to its cave near a beautiful, blue lake. When the dragon went inside the cave, Manny cautiously crept up to the entrance and surprised the dragon when it came out. With a strength fueled by his love for this father, Manny fought the dragon, stabbing with lightning speed and blocking the dragon’s attacks with his unbreakable shield. But the dragon’s skin was too thick for even Manny’s sword, and he finally returned to Edith and Fred, exhausted and tearful.

Back at the village, the children told their mother of the cave and Manny’s heroic but futile efforts, and they all cried themselves to sleep.

The next day dawned clear and crisp, and again brought hope to the family.

“I’ll go to the cave and I’ll trick the dragon”, vowed Edith. So off she went to the village shaman where she learned a brilliant trick to trap the dragon. This time, the children traveled directly to the dragon’s cave by the glass-smooth lake, and set their trap by the entrance. When the dragon came out, it stepped right into the trap, and was caught by one of its green, scaly feet. Joyfully, the children rushed into the cave to free their father but he was not to be found. The dragon had a trick of its own, and had hidden the man behind a huge rock where he couldn’t see or hear the children, nor they him. The children hurried out of the cave for the dragon had almost chewed through the thick rope holding his leg.

Back at the village, they told their mother of the successful trap but their failure to find their father. They agreed he must surely have been eaten, and cried themselves to sleep once again.

The third day was even more beautiful than the two before. The air brought pure delight with every breath and the sun enlivened everything it touched.

But only Fred noticed the glory of the new day. The rest of the family could only see the image of their father, and the horrible dragon that killed him. So Fred went into the woods alone, and found the cave by the clear, blue lake. And there, staring at its image in the lake, sat the dragon, crying large, blue tears into the water. Unafraid, Fred walked up beside it and patted one of its scaly feet.

“Why are you crying?” he asked.

“I am so lonely,” began the dragon. “Whenever I meet the village men in the woods, they run and scream and try to hurt me with their swords and stones. They are afraid of me because I am so big and ugly. Sometimes I manage to catch one before he runs away and I bring him back to my cave. I feed him and talk to him but none ever respond. Usually they simply die of fright.”

More huge, blue tears rolled from the dragon’s four eyes and into the lake. Fred also began to cry, partly because he now knew his father was certainly dead, and partly out of sympathy for the dragon.

“But why are you crying?” asked the dragon.

Fred recounted the story of the last few days, tearfully ending with the death of his father.

“But wait,” countered the dragon. “Your father is not dead, just hidden behind a stone in my cave.”

Well, Fred’s face lit up immediately and he hugged the dragon’s foot as hard as he could. The dragon gently picked him up, and carried him into the cave where he rolled back the rock and revealed Fred’s father. They hugged and kissed and thanked the dragon for his kindness. Then they all went back to the village where they lived happily ever after, especially the dragon, who spent his time helping the men cut trees in the woods and playing tag with the children.

I am the President

Last week, I encountered someone with an outdoor table and a sign attempting to engage passersby in a discussion about politics. I was tempted, as you would expect, but I was discouraged by the sign he was using to initiate the discussions. His sign had a picture of President Obama which included a Hitler mustache, and the words “He’s nuts” in big letters. Perhaps this person may have had some intelligent things to say about the topics of the day, but I did not approach him due to the disrespect he was showing the President. Not necessarily the words, but certainly the depiction with the mustache.

That got me thinking that perhaps President Obama needs to go on TV and give the following speech.

My fellow Americans. I am the President of the United States of America. I am the president of over 350 million people, millions of whom voted for me in 2008, and millions who did not.

I am the president of those who believe that everyone should have a gun, and those that believe that no one should own one.

I am the president of those who believe that abortion is murder, and those who believe that abortion is a decision that is best left to a woman, her family and her doctor.

I am the president of those who believe that gay marriage violates God’s will, and those that believe that in their pursuit of happiness, marriage among two consenting adults should not be regulated by the government.

I am the president of those who believe that the separation of church and state means the government should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, and those that believe that their particular religion is better than the rest and should be established as our national religion.

 
I am president of those who believe that our surging national debt is the biggest threat to our country, and those who believe that sometimes debt created to avoid a national disaster is the lesser of two evils.  

I am president of those who believe that income inequality is the natural result of capitalism, and those who believe that income inequality is a threat to democracy.

I am the president of those who believe that business needs less government regulation, and those who blame our recent economic disasters on the lack of strong government oversight.

I am president of those who believe that we need to close our borders and deport anyone who is illegally in our country and those who are truly grateful that their ancestor immigrants were not treated as cruelly as we are treating today's immigrants.

I am president of those who believe that health care coverage should be available to all Americans, especially those who are sick and of limited income.

I am the president of people who believe that their elected officials should never compromise on the big issues of the day, and those who believe that without compromise, the country cannot address and solve it's problems.

I am the president of the most diverse population on the planet. An assemblage of individuals with as wide a range of viewpoints, and the greatest freedoms to express those views, ever to exist.

I am the president of all these people, all of you, accountable to you in both the voting booth, and as you discuss the issues of the day around your dinner tables and by your water coolers.

I am the President, but not the dictator, of the United States. That means that I must work with the Congress, your other duly elected officials, to steer the ship of state. That means that I must temper my decisions to reflect the majority will while also respecting the rights and views of the minority.

And so, as your president, I will make decisions and policies that many of you support, and many of you do not. To some, I will act as a champion for justice, to others, a threat to your freedom. At times, I will be perceived as America’s greatest ambassador to the world, at others, America’s biggest joke.

I am the President of the United States.

As such, all I ask is for is your support when you agree, and grievances when you do not. But please, support and disagree with respect. If not respect for me or my office, respect for your fellow Americas whose love for this country is just as great as yours, but whose opinions might be the polar opposite of yours.

Let’s show the world America’s greatness by working together to solve our problems despite our differences, rather than spiting each other because of our differences.

An Open Letter to Rick Santorum

I was fortunate enough to have two letters published recently in my local newspaper, the Perkasie Herald.  The first, to candidate Rick Santorum appears below after this additional comment about Mr. Santorum.  It seems he is being skewered over his statement that he doesn't care about the unemployment rate, he is more concerned about the bigger issue of government takeover of our lives.  

Of course, his opponent in the Republican candidate nomination process jumped on the initial part of this comment, by making it clear that he does care about the unemployment rate and that should he be elected the CEO of America, he will be able to create jobs thereby reducing the ranks of the unemployed.  

I imagine that, as conservatives, both men believe that the best way for a president to create jobs is to get out of the way of business and let them do their thing.  Perhaps Mr. Romney thinks he can teach the business community a thing or two about creating jobs, but then, wouldn't that mean interfering in the market, the very thing that conservatives abhor about the government?  

Perhaps Mr. Romney's version of conservatism assumes that government intervention is OK when the intervention is from a conservative, but not when it originates from a liberal. 

I thought that the more interesting comment made by Mr. Santorum was that he would eliminate all the government programs designed to help Americans because he believes that Americans should take care of each other, not expect the government to do it for us.  

On the surface, that sounds good.  Take care of each other.  A very Christian attitude.  And, when a community is hit with a natural disaster, this attitude would result in other communities helping out.  

One could continue this analogy until we reach the point where all Americans participate in the assistance to all other Americans who need some help.  An entire nation sharing the mindset that we have each others' backs.  

Isn't that precisely how local, state, and federal assistance programs started?  Isn't food stamps for the disadvantaged, unemployment for the recently laid off, subsidized medical assistance for the sick who can't afford the private sectors' premiums, a social security check for the elderly who can no longer work, aren't all those programs the logical result of Americans helping each other, caring for each other, doing their part to prevent fellow Americans from being hungry, going without medical care, losing their home? 

I guess I just don't understand why a government program to help the citizens of America is bad?  Isn't the government supposed to be "we the people".  Aren't each of us, collectively, the government of the United States of America?
   
Anyway, here is my letter to candidate Santorum.

----------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Rick Santorum,

Congratulations! Through personal hard work and via a consistent message, you have become a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. While you still face an uphill battle until the national convention, it is clear that you have secured the backing of enough deep pocket donors, the support of the evangelical community, and the respect of many everyday Americans, to be a force to be considered for the remainder of the primary season. You have demonstrated a faith in your candidacy when few political pundits took you seriously. Truly, your rise to become one of the potential nominees in a two man race is a wonderful example of the American dream where persistence and fortitude are rewarded. And, if the trend continues and you are victorious in August, you will have accomplished the herculean task of overtaking the presumed candidate in a very short time.

But, Mr. Santorum, there will be no time to revel in your success. The presidential election will be here in the blink of an eye. Your opponent will surely have a huge advantage of monies available to spend. And, while I expect those nominees whom you have bested will lend their verbal support, I would not expect them to be daily advocates of your campaign. You may need to go it alone, just as you have up until now.

More importantly, you will need to convince the middle 20% of voters, those that haven’t already decided to vote for the incumbent or the challenger, that you are the better choice. The problem is that these voters do not believe as you do. Perhaps it’s the insulating nature of a political campaign, but just because those who surround you every day, those who attend your rallies, those who advise and support you, just because they all tell you that your message is on target and your vision is shared by all Americans, it doesn’t mean that is true.

You see, the reality is that a large percentage of Americans do not share your religious convictions about gay marriage, abortion, birth control, war. Many Americans, Americans of similar, dissimilar and no faith at all, patriotic Americans who have personally served or have family currently in a branch of the service, or who may have lost loved ones in service of our great country, many Americans believe differently than you. And many of these Americans comprise that middle 20% of the vote that you will need for your dream to come true and gain the White House.

Mr. Santorum, it is easy to make friends of and gain support from those who agree with you. It takes no great effort or persuasive personality. It is those that disagree with you that require the effort. And while you will most likely fail in the effort to make your opinion that of all Americans, it is precisely this disparity of opinion that makes America the great nation that it is today. Not in our ability to agree with each other, but in our ability to disagree and still respect each other. In our ability to take opposing viewpoints and find common ground. In our freedoms which allow everyone’s perspective to see the light of day even when that perspective violates our religious tenets.

In the end, sir, you do not have all the answers despite what your strong faith might suggest. It is in a diversity of opinion and perspective that the real solutions to our problems will be discovered. As in nature when too much commonality produces a strain that is most susceptible to disease or extinction, so to must human interactions include the range of ideas and expressions to survive and flourish.

Your path so far has been admirable. But if you really mean to cross the finish line first, you must untangle yourself from the bible. While it is a wonderful inspiration for personal growth, it is not the basis for this great American experiment in government. By insisting that we use it in place of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, you impose a viewpoint that denies access to the American Dream to those with a different religious perspective. And, ultimately, a theocracy is not the direction that the middle 20% of voters are willing to embrace.

 

Contraception and Sex

Unbelievably nice weather for the beginning of March.  Maybe climate change will be a good thing, if you can look past droughts, record heat, rising coastal tides, and melting ice caps.

When I first started sending letters to the Inquirer, I was lucky to have started a correspondence with someone who responded to one of my letters. That correspondence is still ongoing.  We agree more than we disagree, but we maintain a respectful tone when we express our opinions.  We recently communicated a few times in regards to the contraception broo-haha that resulted from the Catholic church protesting the requirement that they provide family planning as part of their health care packages.

Here is the last email to my friend on this subject


I think that the problem is the focus on sex. You say that sex is not a bodily function required for survival. Yet, there are many people who decry homosexual sex precisely because it does not result in human reproduction. From that point they justify demonizing those who practice gay sex, and then go even further by denying the gay community the benefits of marriage. So, while sex may not be required for personal survival, it is certainly a necessity for the continued survival of the human race.

This is the mistake, the focus on sex, that a certain radio talk show host made when he portrayed a young woman as a whore for testifying in favor of insurers providing for family planning. Or the rich Republican donor who was quoted as advocating the "aspirin" method of birth control; woman should keep an aspirin between their knees. What is as disturbing as the attack on this young woman is the assumption that the woman is the slut. Does the man have no responsibility? Should not these comments also include attacks upon the young men having sex as well? Perhaps there should be a "Pinocchio" effect on the men who impregnate a woman. I wonder if a growing nose, say relative to the size of the woman's belly, would shed a new perspective on the men who are so quick to label woman who have sex as whores. It would certainly make paternity suits and there requisite denials (by the man) a bit more clear cut.

What is truly ironic is that the Catholic Church, the prime "victim" in this recent debate, has as one of its main tenets the belief that all sex acts must include the understanding that a child may be produced, which is why any form of birth control is anathema. The fact that the birth rate among Catholics has dropped in the past two generations resulting in a precipitous drop in parochial school enrollment must be a mystery to those who believe that Catholics do not use birth control. Perhaps we should remember that increasing the population of the fold is an understandable motive for any institution, religious or otherwise, and that one of the best ways to encourage followers to have more children is to make not having children a betrayal of the group. Like it or not, our various societal institutions, religious or civic, have encouraged or discouraged reproduction, hence sex, for as long as the connection between sex and reproduction has been understood. It is a way to control the flock, the citizenry, or whatever the appropriate term. And it is usually men controlling, or trying to control women.

Not to mention the perception that permeates our current culture that woman who have sex are loose, and men who have sex are virile.
In the end, sex is not the issue when discussing contraception, family planning, birth control or whatever phrase you want to use. It is about providing the most information, options and choices for women. It is about treating them as more than walking wombs. It is about men realizing that forcing women to have babies is not a reflection of "God's will" but a reflection of the lack of respect and humanity that men have historically shown to women. As I have said before, the conversation would be quite different, if men had to carry and birth our next generation.

As for abortion, I understand your abhorrence. But, to turn your back on all family planning because of the belief that abortion kills a human life when abortion is a very small part of the family planning tool kit seems shortsighted. While abortion should be the last choice, disavowing all other birth control methods seems to be a recipe for an increase of the very act of abortion that is so distasteful. If we restrict women's access to the various methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies, should we not expect both more aborted fetuses as well as unwanted children?

Look at it this way. The slums of the world all have one thing in common. Too many people in too small a space. Doesn't it make sense to encourage family planning as a way to reduce income inequality? Poverty? Disease? When we see pictures of children dying in far away lands from dysentery, malnutrition, dehydration, and then we don't make the connection between the lack of family planning that is provided for the women of these lands, the influence of religions that tell them that condoms are evil and that having babies is their duty as females, the sheer arrogance demonstrated by men who condemn women for having sex while all the while pretending that it isn't men they are having sex with, then we are blind to the consequences that these beliefs have on those children as they die.

It is a wonderful trait to honor and protect life. But to honor and protect it in the womb then forget about it once it is born casts a shadow on its sincerity.

Bees and Politicians

This past weekend marked the first Saturday and Sunday that I didn't have to awaken at 3:00 AM since last July.  I must say it was nice to sleep until light, and to find a newspaper delivered to my doorstep by someone else.  Unfortunately, I was still not able to post at all last week as I worked on my day off and a did a double shift to cover for a sick fellow assistant manager.  Perhaps this week will afford me some more time.

In my last post, I reported on the major bills voted upon by the House and Senate.  This past week, 3 bills were detailed in the Inquirer, two in the House and one in the Senate.

The House voted 303-114 to repeal new Department of Education rules for for-profit colleges and universities.  Among others, these rules would have required these for-profit education providers to meet accreditation requirements in each state in which they have a presence, established state-by-state processes for handling student complaints, and would have set a uniform definition for a "credit hour" for purpose of allocating federal financial aid.  These rules were set to go into effect in July 2014 but now they will not.  All local Republican reps voted in favor, and half of local Democrats.  The 2nd bill overrides or weakens existing California and federal laws and compacts related to the allocation of San Joaquin River water in the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  The bill directs more water to agriculture users in the Central Valley and less to the benefit of farming in the delta and less to fishing, environmental and recreational interests in other parts of California and Oregon.  This bill passed along party lines; all local Republican members voted yes, all local Democratic reps voted no.

In the Senate, by a vote of 51-48, an amendment was tabled (killed) which would enabled insurers and employers to refuse to insure any medical procedure, item or device that conflicts with their "religious beliefs or moral convictions".   Both Pennsylvania senators, one of each party, voted in favor of the amendment while both senators from NJ and DE (all Democratic) voted against the amendment. 

Yesterday, I read an interesting article in the Smithsonian Magazine (March 2012 edition, "Hive Mind") about bees and how they make collective decisions.  In essence, a bee swarm makes its big decisions in a "democratic" fashion.  For instance, scout bees bring information about moving to a new location, and communicate this info to the hive via length and intensity of their dance.  The more positive a scout bee feels about the new home it has scouted, the longer and more frenetic its dance to its fellow bees.  This encourages other bees to "check out" the scout bees research, and as they return to communicate their agreement, again, their dance indicates the intensity of their feelings.  Once enough bees become of similar mind, the hive departs for its new home.  Of course, there is more to it than this simplified summary.  Other scout bees also may be bringing info about a new home, dancing as long or as passionately, thereby inspiring other bees to check out their findings.  In the end though, the decision to move to a particular home is made by a quorum of bees who have been exposed to a number of different locations but have decided, as a group, to which home to move.  (The decision is not the queen's, by the way).
 
What seems striking to me is how this behavior compares and contrasts with our democratic process.  One could consider our elected officials as our scout bees, in charge of plotting out the future of our human hive.  We listen to their speeches, feel their passion, sometimes we even check out the facts for ourselves.  Of course, the scout bees of a hive seem to be operating under the guidelines of "what is best for the hive" whereas there seems to be many politicians who pretend to vote and govern for the betterment of the people but who sometimes seem only concerned for their particular group of constituents (or worse, themselves) rather than the country as a whole.  And, once the hive makes its decisions, all the bees work together to make the decision work.  It seems that  in this time of political partisanship, we are in a pattern where those whose "dance" is not chosen, work to inhibit the success of the winning dance, regardless of whether it is in the best interest of the hive or not.  We seem to believe in a democratic process to decide but only when that decision agrees with our own.  I imagine this "my-way-or-the-highway" approach would devastate a bee swarm. 

Nature, whether by its examples of the collective behavior of bees or birds, ants or whales, repeatedly demonstates the power of the group to achieve more than what can be accomplished by its individual members.  Clearly, humankind has evolved beyond the instincts that enable bees to individually find a new home then collectively decide which home is best.  Like bees, we allow the majority to rule in most decisions, yet we also maintain a respect for the individual and a voice (and limited) power for the minority. 

Imagine then, how amazing the accomplishments of men will be when we can combine both the individual power of our best with the collective power of the whole.

   

Check those votes

Well, my newspaper delivering days are over...sort of.  I was asked to stay on another week due to some unforeseen carrier issues, so my last day was this past Sunday, 2/19.  However, I am expecting a call in the next day or so asking me to deliver the route this weekend.  I am leaning towards a yes answer as of now.

In the meantime, I was able to sleep past 3:00 AM today and yesterday!!  First time since late July 2011.  All in all, I awoke around 3:00 AM about 530 out of the past 540 days to deliver papers.  For those of you who have never, or at least not recently been awake in the early morning hours, you should try it every once in a while.  Do it on a day when the moon is on the full side and either rising or falling near sunrise.  Priceless.

A month or so ago I reported on some of the votes cast by our congressmen.  Now that I am a one job man, at least for a while, I am hoping to detail the action of our elected officials more frequently.

Last week, the big vote was about extending the payroll tax cut.  Both the House and Senate approved this measure which results in about $25 more in an average workers weekly pay check.  The bill also extended jobless benefits for the long term unemployed and prevents the cuts to doctors serving Medicare patients.  (These cuts have been voted out every year since they were first proposed as a way to make Medicare more solvent).

Interestingly, the approval was bipartisan. 

Of course, many economic pundits will tell you that $25 a week is not much.  I guess if you are making $5000 a week ($250,000 a year), $25 is a tip for the restaurant parking valet.  But for those of us in the real world, $25 a week ($100 a month) can be

- used to bring down or pay a credit card debt
- saved for a vacation
- saved for Christmas gifts
- used to build up an emergency fund
- used to go to the dentist (less than half of Americans have dental coverage)
- used to eat out at a local restaurant, perhaps twice in a month
- used to save for future college costs

As I have said before, our elected officials are not like us when it comes to the economic realities of our lives.  They don't live paycheck to paycheck.  They don't have to decide between saving for the future or paying today's bills.  They don't understand the difficulty of knowing that a $500 car repair bill or a suddenly broken washer or refrigerator means a new credit card bill or doing without that car or appliance. 

Perhaps we need a new voting guideline based, not on issues but on net worth.  Maybe we should be voting for the candidate with the least amount of money.  The person with the least amount of inside contacts, the least number of friends in high places, the least investment portfolio managers.  Perhaps we need the best and brightest who have an advanced sense of social awareness and service to the public good, as opposed to the best and brightest who have made a lot of money. 

Also, this past week, the House voted along party lines to nearly triple America's offshore oil and gas production by opening up more federal lands to commercial energy development (including a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).  And, of course, they inserted a thorn in Obama's foot by authorizing the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline.  I don't believe there is a companion bill in the Senate so this vote was mostly symbolic.

The most interesting thing about the planned votes for this week is that Congress is in recess for Presidents' Day.  Recess for the week.  While the current level of bickering between the parties might make my next statement seem mute, shouldn't we expect our Representatives and Senators to spend a little more time doing their job?

I don't think they spend even half of the year (180 days) in session.

Finally, last week there was a vote in Congress to make it illegal for members of the House and Senate to use their knowledge to engage in insider trading.  In other words, it is now illegal for an elected official to buy or sell a stock because he/she, in performing the business of public service, is aware of events that will make that stock increase or decrease in value.  Really?  So, up until now it was OK?

All in all, it is a wonder that we don't follow the voting records of our elected officials more closely. After all, we vote them in, or out, you would think we would then follow their efforts to improve our lives through legislation. Perhaps someday, water cooler talk will be less about the latest athlete's performance and more about the most recent votes recorded by our federal legislators. 

Contraception controversy

Almost-full moon set the last few mornings; I believe it will be a completely full moon tonight/tomorrow AM.  I will miss these lunar shows as well as my new deer, squirrel, bird, skunk, fox and rabbit early morning friends as this Sunday will be my last day to deliver papers.  I gave notice 3 1/2 weeks ago and have been counting down the days ever since.  I am not sure if the loss of income can be covered, but with Nora's new job which started late last summer and the two promotions I have received since October, we will give it a month to see.  Perhaps I will have to set my alarm for 2:57 AM once a week just for old times sake!

I read an interesting article in January's Smithsonian about Roger Williams.  See link below to cut and paste into your browser.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html

Don't know the name Roger Williams?  Don't worry, very few people do.  He was a Puritan minister who bucked the thinking and theology of his time by writing and arguing for the separation of church and state, in the 1600's!

It would be a disservice to the Smithsonian article for me to attempt to summarize this story.  Please, spend a few minutes and read it for your self.  Let it suffice to say that Mr. Williams thought the government too corrupt to be involved in the authorization or even tacit support of any religion.  So, at a time when the governments of the early pilgrims borrowed heavily from the tenants of their religion, Mr Williams nary mentioned God or a verse of the Bible in his "compacts".  He was all about keeping ones religion private, and he paid the price of this belief by being banished from the colonies he was instrumental in founding.  At the end, he was not able to convince his peers that government should be truly separate from the church and religious worhip/thought.  He died, belonging to no church, as he believed that God's will was "better discerned by individuals than by institutions". 

But the truly remarkable thing about Roger Williams was his effect on the thinkers of the day and the days to follow.  In particular, John Locke was influenced by Williams' groundbreaking work The Bloody Tenent.  And for those students of the founding fathers, it was Locke's work that Jefferson, Madison and other architects of the US Constitution studied.  Strange then, isn't it, that an extremely religious Puritan of the 17th century helped inspire the very document that established the American experiment in governance.  An experiment that still features a sometimes vitriolic, always contentious debate on the relationship between church and state.

Which, of course, brings us to the current debate surrounding the mandate within the health care reforms of 2010 which requires insurance companies to provide birth control coverage for all employers, even those of religious affiliation.  Just this past weekend, the spiritual leader of the Philadelphia Archdiocese produced a letter which was read at all masses decrying this decision citing separation of church and state as one of its arguments.  

Why should we be forced to provide birth control for our employees when this practice violates our religious beliefs? says the letter which encourages all parishioners to contact their federal reps and relay their displeasure at the Obama Administration.  And, if the mandate was not enough, the law calls for a fine against the employer for each violation, a fine which will force these religious affiliated hospitals to either eliminate their health coverage in its entirety, or pay for and provide a service which goes against their dogma.

I can understand the outrage of feeling one's beliefs are being trumped by one's very own government.  It is easy to forget that just 50 years ago, John F Kennedy had to dispel the ridiculous notion that should he be elected president he would look to Rome for his decisions.   And, while it has only marginally been addressed, there are those who have suggested that Mitt Romney is unfit to lead America because he is a Mormon, a religion that some call non-Christian at best, a cult at worst.  Clearly, discrimination based on one's religion, is not to be tolerated. 

But, of course, it goes both ways.  Should we then expect an employee of a catholic affiliated hospital to be catholic?  Should all the health care providers of these organizations follow all tenants of the catholic religion, including those tenants that believe that birth control is unnatural?  Should only Catholics be admitted into the hospital to prevent the necessity of a medical procedure that might offend someone's religious beliefs, regardless of whether it might save the life of the patient?

I guess for me, it comes down to this.  Does a patient's right to health care trump the religions beliefs of the health care provider?  If not, should that health care provider rethink their duty to provide the best and most comprehensive health care possible, or at the very least, screen his/her patients to discern their religious beliefs? And, which of these discussions violates the Hippocratic Oath that medical providers allegedly take?

What annoys me is that the church's rule on birth control smacks more of male control over woman than a religious belief that helps one attain eternal life.  Isn't it a bit hypocritical for those who have adopted the very real and difficult vow of chastity to make decisions for others about the very real and difficult decision to have a child or not to have a child?  And, not withstanding those quoted who were outraged by this decision, isn't it true that a large percentage of Catholics in fact, are using birth control methods which are contrary to church teaching?  It is certainly easy for the older people among the flock to support this dogma, but what about the real life experiences of young adults, married or not?  

In the end, perhaps Roger Williams was right about the need for a complete separation and his belief that understanding God's will is better left to each person rather than any institution, church or state.
             

Atlas Shrugged

Last week I drove my son back to college for the spring semester.  It is a 6 1/2 hour trip each way for those who have not read my blog in the past.  During the drive, we discussed a number of topics.  I was pleasantly surprised that he is very well read, certainly more so than myself at that age.  For those of you who think that today's young men and women are all about texting, video games and everything electronic when it comes to social interaction and entertainment, perhaps you need to look past the fact that they make use of what is available to them, just as we would have done if these devices were around when we were young, and actually try to engage a young person in a meaningful conversation.  Perhaps you will also be pleasantly surprised. 

Anyway, one of the topics we broached was Ayn Rand and her philosophy of the virtue of selfishness as brilliantly depicted in her novel Atlas Shrugged.  The popularity of her writings seem to ebb and wane as a new generation comes of age.  I read her books when in my twenties and again in my forties.  Lately, the rise of Ron Paul's libertarian viewpoint and the current popularity of some high profile conservatives who quote Rand's characters when bemoaning the "welfare state" has again brought her writings into the discussions of college dorms and "individualists".

And, of course, her philosophy is enticing to the young, and those who are successful.  It glorifies individual accomplishments.  It presents a viewpoint that anything is possible if those with the talent and drive are left to their own devices, without interference from the state as represented by those who cannot do for themselves but need to leech off those who can.  It plays perfectly in to the minds of people with above average talent, above average resources, above average opportunities, and those with the bulk of life still to be lived. 

For those who have never read Ayn Rand, in a most simplistic summary, the characters of Atlas Shrugged, those with the greatest talents and ambition, remove their skills and abilities from society.  They take blue collar jobs working in the fields they love, but do not lend their ideas to these endeavors.  Manual labor only.  Perhaps this is a stretch, but sometimes I detect a bit of this thinking when I hear people declare that by taxing the rich we negate the incentive for the "job creators" of our society.  As if, if they cannot make gobs of money, they will withhold their skills and settle for only piles of money.  Curiously, in my readings of Atlas Shrugged, I don't recall money being the end game for those noble characters.  They loved their work; monetary rewards (and public recognition) were a byproduct of their efforts.  Expected, perhaps, but not the driving force behind their energy. 

In a previous blog, I mentioned the importance of pride in one's work.  The characters of Atlas Shrugged demonstrated a pride that bordered on arrogance, at least to those who didn't share as strong a sense.  If making money is the only goal of one's work, does not the actual work get lost in the process?  For those at the top of the economic ledger, is creating jobs part of their calculation when creating and running a successful business or is it only creating and maintaining a profit?  If the former, it seems hard to marry the current state of unemployment when corporate profits and investment income is soaring.  If the latter, then perhaps those who espouse the "trickle down" economic theory should at least be honest with themselves (if not the public) and admit that their character pales when compared to those of Ayn Rand's novels.

Here's a thought.  Perhaps we need a few days of "Joe Public Shrugged".  A few days without TV because all of the people behind the camera choose to shrug.  A few days without Starbucks because all of the servers decide to shrug.  A few days of trash on the sidewalk, no policemen walking the streets, no firefighters to answer the call, no newspapers delivered, no supermarkets open, no one to walk our dogs or babysit our kids, or move the masses in buses, subways, trains.  Perhaps we need to send a wake up call to the Atlases among us that there are far more of us than you and if we were to shrug in unison... well, what a day that might be.

           

Farewell PeeWee

Last week we experienced the loss of my daughter's pet ferret, PeeWee.  As my wife will readily tell you, I am not a "pet person", and, compared to my wife and daughter, she is correct.  Still, the tears I shed in the vet's office when my daughter and I made the decision to put PeeWee to sleep, as well as those I made in our backyard as we said our goodbyes and put him into the ground, were real.  Not necessarily tears for PeaWee and how I might miss him, but for my daughter who had lost both a beloved pet and a playmate.

Empathy. 

Wikipedia defines Empathy as the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another.

We are in the midst of a very intense nomination process for the Republican party.  While I am not a registered Republican, I am following this process very closely as it is certainly possible, a 50-50 chance if you believe those who claim to know, that the next president will be from this party.  As I have listened to those with a vested interest in the nominee, I have heard many characteristics which a successful candidate should possess in order to gain the faith of the Republican voter.

Some extol the virtues of the businessman who can provide a plan to create jobs.

Some want a leader with a vision to make this century another "America's century".

Some prefer a fiscal conservative who will reign in spending and reduce our national debt.

A man of faith and values is sought by some.

An independent thinker who will shake up Washington is what others seek.

Economic knowledge, leadership, fiscally responsible, high values, family centered, independent.  Sounds like a recipe for a strong president.

Yet I wonder if the the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another, should also be a desirable quality in a president.

When I hear nominee Romney recount his days at Bain, the private equity company he headed, I am struck by the ease in which he was able to make decisions regarding the buying and selling, and/or break up of companies.  The fact that thousands of average working class folk lost their jobs with the execution of these choices while Romney and Bain made millions of dollars makes me wonder where his empathy is for the American family who is negatively affected by those choices.  Is "It's business, not personal" to be the catch phrase for our new president when he puts profit before people?

When I hear nominee Santorum defend his assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an important step towards reestablishing values in America, I wonder where his empathy is for Americans who have committed their love and energy to another person only to be told that since that person is of the same sex, they cannot marry, they are not "kin" should a life ending decision need to be made, they cannot expect equal treatment under the laws of our great nation.  For them, the pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence just does not apply.

When I hear nominee Paul disavow the letters sent out in his name that questioned the need for the Civil Rights Act I wonder where his empathy is for those Americans who were denied jobs, housing, education, etc, because their skin color was different. 

Empathy.

It is very easy to feel sorrow for those we love, those we agree with on the important topics of the day. But to feel empathy for those with a different economic status, a different sexual preference, a different skin color requires an advanced sense of compassion.  A presidential sense one might say.









  






 

Do you believe? (2)

My first "do you believe" touched on the messages of those classic Christmas movies, goodwill to our fellow man, and the false importance of money and possessions in our lives.

This post reflects on a recent survey I encountered where people of varying income levels were asked if they are optimistic or pessimistic about their personal future and about the national future as a whole. 

As expected, there was a ratio equating more optimism with the higher income respondents.  And, it being the start of a new year, there was a higher percentage of people with an optimistic outlook across all income groups; if nothing else, Americans are a positive group despite personal and/or national economic problems. 

What intrigued me was the stark difference between the optimism felt by people for their personal future as opposed to what they felt for the nation as a whole.  Across all income levels, individuals were more optimistic by at least 10, sometimes as much as 20 percentage points for themselves as for the country as a whole.  In other words, they felt their own lives would improve but did not think the lives of their friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans were likely to improve as well.

Is this common?  Do we always think we can beat the odds on a personal level but do not think the same for others?  From a historic perspective, was the idea that our country as a whole had a bright future more prevalent in the 1950's?  1970's?  1990's?  Did we more closely tie our personal optimism to our optimism about our country in past decades?

I titled this blog, Do you believe? because I lean towards the concept that believing that "things will get better" is as much a part of the solution to making things better as any other factor.  The psychology of believing in one's future, in one's country's future goes a long way towards overcoming the everyday problems that life brings our way. 

Is your cup half full or half empty? 

Don't get me wrong.  I certainly don't mean to suggest that putting on a happy face is enough to solve the problems of the day.  Real problems require real solutions but perhaps finding those solutions is more easily accomplished if one believes there is a solution to find.

The second part of the equation is a belief in each other.  If we feel confident that we can tackle our own issues but less confident in our family, friends and neighbors then we might tend to address the problems individually rather than collectively.  I understand that we are a capitalistic society with a strong avoidance mechanism of anything that smacks of socialism, but man is a social animal.  While we may still tend towards the occasional tribalistic actions, we still prefer to live in communities, among others like ourselves. 

The idea that we can tackle our own problems by ourselves, belies the obvious fact that without the help of each other, no serious problem can ever be solved.  We need each other.

Need a job?  Well you need an employer to hire you.  Sick?  You need a doctor's advice.  Sad?  You need friends, loved ones, perhaps even a professional to help you see and feel the love that exists, and provide a door for you to cross towards that love.

I am sure that there is no provable way for me to substantiate what I am about to suggest, but I would imagine that a correlation exists between those nations/civilizations that saw the greatest advancements  in the welfare and happiness of its citizens and the simple act of believing in each other.  Whether these accomplishments centered on achieving a higher standard of living or defeating a power mad lunatic, it was through the accumulated efforts of each and every person and the belief that someone "had my back" that made those achievements possible.

Do you believe?