Petty meanness rules!
Here we are; it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown. Not only that, but just up the road a piece, we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling. Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless, mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear: They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.
Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home. Here's one sample of pure meanness: Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R - 8th). He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy households. Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner. Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.
Yet Mr. Fincher insists on citing the following biblical passage: "Those unwilling to work shall not eat". He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do, but not with government money". (Charities do great work, but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need, especially in stressful times).
This congressman, who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles), has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself. His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Tennessee's Eighth District, which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis, has a long, bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats. I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014: someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible; a candidate who'd appeal to everyone's better nature. Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune, and probably know folks who are struggling --- and may even be on food stamps.
Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st), the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate. According to Mr. Ryan, SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".
Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures. Understood. Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net, such as the food stamp cuts.
The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority. If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight, maybe just maybe it could happen!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Obamacare & the Expansion of Medicaid: a Sure Lot Better than What We Had (or Didn't Have)
It's not my intent to trash Obamacare (a.k.a., The Affordable Care Act or ACA). Provisions already in effect really have made health care more affordable and accessible for many Americans. But other families and individuals are still out of the loop. While insurance carriers can no longer impose lifetime caps on their policy-holders, or reject them for pre-existing conditions, there's precious little control over the premiums that carriers can impose, at least for now.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
U.S. Military Action in Syria = More Grief
The decision whether or not to use military force in Syria is a tormenting one. Persuasive arguments can be made pro or con. Ideally, the disempowerment of Bashar al-Assad would be a cause for celebration if the political climate was stable. Atrocities against fellow Syrians committed by his regime appear to be well-documented by organizations such as Doctors Without Borders. (The United Nations report is still pending).
Supporters of military action seem to believe that Assad will think twice about committing monstrous acts against his own citizens. But many skeptics are concerned that U.S. attacks could stiffen his resolve instead, possibly accelerating the level of his brutality. Providing military aid to Syrian rebels might have been a viable alternative if they were relatively unified. But ideologically, they're all over the map, ranging from democrats to proponents of organizations like Al Qaeda.
We'd be going it alone. Nations initially perceived as compromising a "coalition of the willing" are no longer so willing. The British Parliament has opted out of the coalition by a margin of 13 votes. Prime Minister David Cameron, an avid supporter of the effort, graciously conceded, declaring that Great Britain would not contribute to a military campaign in Syria. (Some of his critics believe that he shouldn't have given up so quickly). The Arab League seems to be backing away from any commitment as well. With Security Council opposition from Russia, the United Nations is also a no-go.
Last year, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons constituted a "red line" which should never be crossed. In retrospect, that was probably not a wise statement. Now, proponents of intervention state that if nothing is done, we'll be perceived as weaklings and all hell will break loose. Well, all hell seems to be breaking loose as it is. It's a civil war! Foreign (U.S.) intervention could very easily add a new dimension to that civil war, causing it to spill over the borders (e.g.: Attacks on Israel and Turkey with the certainty of reprisals). Is that really a desireable outcome?
Loss of life is tragic and leaves a terrible void for those who survive. Should it really matter if the cause of death is from toxic chemicals, missiles, or bullets? Or possibly some other method of torture? (Check out an earlier post on this blog dated 4/26/13: "The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare").
The last documented attack on civilians with chemical weapons occurred in 1988, in the Kurdish town of Halabja, courtesy of Saddam Hussein --- who at the time was still considered our good buddy. No one objected. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a non-governmental body, wasn't established until 1993. 191 nations (including Russia and Iran) have signed the organization's Chemical Weapons Convention (CPC). Only five have not; one of those five is Syria.
Incidentally, a napalm attack on a school near Aleppo, in rebel territory, has recently been reported. What napalm does to human beings is horrifying. But our own hands are not unsoiled; the United States used it on the Vietnamese. Many of those who were severely burned by napalm were civilians, including women and children.
One more item to consider: No one proposed an intervention in Argentina during the late 1970s. Yet the atrocities committed by the military dictatorship there were well-known. Their most adamant critics were kidnapped, bound and gagged, trundled aboard airplanes, and dropped into the Atlantic while still alive. Prior to their abductions, the victims' children were snatched away from them, and forcibly placed for adoption by families that supported the junta. Again, no one raised their voices.
The military option worries me for two reasons:
1) Needless fatalities caused by U.S. attacks could very likely alienate former supporters. A few might even be driven to seek bloody revenge; think Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother charged with the massacre at the Boston Marathon. He was very clear about his motive, stating that Americans killed his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) Although Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, has insisted that our action would be limited, what happens if things don't go according to plan? Is there even an exit plan? Kerry did state that there'd be no use of ground troops, but when the subject of unanticipated hypothetical situations was mentioned, he waffled.
Alternatives? There really are no easy answers. Assad can be tried and convicted in-absentia by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. An international effort can (and should) be focused on further isolating him. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid.
In concert with the international community, that's something we could to be doing.
Supporters of military action seem to believe that Assad will think twice about committing monstrous acts against his own citizens. But many skeptics are concerned that U.S. attacks could stiffen his resolve instead, possibly accelerating the level of his brutality. Providing military aid to Syrian rebels might have been a viable alternative if they were relatively unified. But ideologically, they're all over the map, ranging from democrats to proponents of organizations like Al Qaeda.
We'd be going it alone. Nations initially perceived as compromising a "coalition of the willing" are no longer so willing. The British Parliament has opted out of the coalition by a margin of 13 votes. Prime Minister David Cameron, an avid supporter of the effort, graciously conceded, declaring that Great Britain would not contribute to a military campaign in Syria. (Some of his critics believe that he shouldn't have given up so quickly). The Arab League seems to be backing away from any commitment as well. With Security Council opposition from Russia, the United Nations is also a no-go.
Last year, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons constituted a "red line" which should never be crossed. In retrospect, that was probably not a wise statement. Now, proponents of intervention state that if nothing is done, we'll be perceived as weaklings and all hell will break loose. Well, all hell seems to be breaking loose as it is. It's a civil war! Foreign (U.S.) intervention could very easily add a new dimension to that civil war, causing it to spill over the borders (e.g.: Attacks on Israel and Turkey with the certainty of reprisals). Is that really a desireable outcome?
Loss of life is tragic and leaves a terrible void for those who survive. Should it really matter if the cause of death is from toxic chemicals, missiles, or bullets? Or possibly some other method of torture? (Check out an earlier post on this blog dated 4/26/13: "The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare").
The last documented attack on civilians with chemical weapons occurred in 1988, in the Kurdish town of Halabja, courtesy of Saddam Hussein --- who at the time was still considered our good buddy. No one objected. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a non-governmental body, wasn't established until 1993. 191 nations (including Russia and Iran) have signed the organization's Chemical Weapons Convention (CPC). Only five have not; one of those five is Syria.
Incidentally, a napalm attack on a school near Aleppo, in rebel territory, has recently been reported. What napalm does to human beings is horrifying. But our own hands are not unsoiled; the United States used it on the Vietnamese. Many of those who were severely burned by napalm were civilians, including women and children.
One more item to consider: No one proposed an intervention in Argentina during the late 1970s. Yet the atrocities committed by the military dictatorship there were well-known. Their most adamant critics were kidnapped, bound and gagged, trundled aboard airplanes, and dropped into the Atlantic while still alive. Prior to their abductions, the victims' children were snatched away from them, and forcibly placed for adoption by families that supported the junta. Again, no one raised their voices.
The military option worries me for two reasons:
1) Needless fatalities caused by U.S. attacks could very likely alienate former supporters. A few might even be driven to seek bloody revenge; think Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother charged with the massacre at the Boston Marathon. He was very clear about his motive, stating that Americans killed his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) Although Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, has insisted that our action would be limited, what happens if things don't go according to plan? Is there even an exit plan? Kerry did state that there'd be no use of ground troops, but when the subject of unanticipated hypothetical situations was mentioned, he waffled.
Alternatives? There really are no easy answers. Assad can be tried and convicted in-absentia by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. An international effort can (and should) be focused on further isolating him. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid.
In concert with the international community, that's something we could to be doing.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Rahm Emanuel: "The Education Mayor" & His Love Affair With Charter Schools
I have never been a great admirer of Rahm Emanuel, my hometown mayor. In fact, I supported one of his opponents, an independent-minded administrator named Miguel Del Valle during the 2011 mayoral campaign.
It seems as if public schools throughout the nation are becoming public policy makers' favorite piñata. In Philadelphia, state funding cutbacks have forced the closing of 23 public schools. Yet state officials managed to uncover some miraculous monetary honeypot to fund a brand-spankin' new prison just north of Philly to the tune of $400 million!
Here in Chicago, 50 elementary schools, primarily in struggling neighborhoods, are being shut down. Programs, especially creative arts, are being butchered at many surviving schools as well. It has to be done because we're in dire financial straits, so they say. Yet the Emanuel administration is able to pony up financing for a new sports arena near the McCormick Place convention complex. This, despite the fact that two other publicly-financed athletic stadiums haven't even come close to paying for themselves:
1) Soldier Field, extensively and expensively renovated, primarily to benefit the Chicago Bears, who play eight
games a year there --- and ---
2) Cellullar Field
(nee: Comiskey Park) publicly funded to
the tune of $200 million for the owners of the
Chicago White Sox, who for the past few years have
had their rent payments waived owing to low
attendance. (The team owners were mandated to pay
rent to the Illinois Sports Finance Authority, technically
the owner of the stadium, assuming that paid attendance
figures exceeded a minimum threshold. Well,
that threshold hasn't been met for a while now).
At the same time, bids are being solicited for the establishment of more charter schools, despite their largely dubious records of success. The case is often made that the charter schools save the taxpayers money in contrast to public schools. Maybe so, but is that really a cause for pride? First of all, teachers' average salaries are lower because they tend not to hang around long enough to accumulate much seniority. Also, the charters are able to "cherry-pick" their students --- generally the least "expensive" ones, not those with special needs. Unrestricted enrollment may be mandated, but they can ultimately drop pupils who don't conform to their standards. Rejected students are, of course, shunted back to the public schools.
Here in my home town, the mayor hand-picks the school board which largely controls policy with precious little public input. There are seven board members: a retired university dean, a retired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principal, and five corporate poobahs. So, guess whose interests predominate!
Mayor Emanuel's latest appointment is an investment advisor named Deborah Quazzo who, just incidentally, sends her three children to the exclusive Chicago Latin School. Her firm, in which she's a managing partner, focuses on private equity investments in education. She also sits on the board of a nation-wide chain of charter schools known as KIPP: an acronym standing for "Knowledge Is Power Program". (There are five KIPP schools in Chicago. Nationally, on average, KIPP schools do not perform especially well in contrast to average public schools, and generally well below college-prep public schools).
Anyway, here's the kicker: I scoped out KIPP's website listing of employment opportunities. It features a group photo of racially and ethnically diverse young teachers, all fresh-faced and hot-to-trot --- y'know, like a "big family". Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these teachers are very earnest and well-intentioned, and really do want to make a dent!
But here's what's expected of them. In return for "competitive salaries and benefits", they're scheduled to work 50 hours a week: (M-F 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM). In addition Saturday "volunteering" is an option, but "almost everyone does it". (Hmm! What kind of performance review might a "non-volunteer" expect?). (Personal note: I've done plenty of volunteer work in my life; it's satisfying and life-affirming. But volunteerism has never been "implied" as "part of my job").
Decades ago, labor activists fought --- and some even died --- for the 40-hour, 5-day work week. Yet, dedicated young teachers at charter schools like KIPP, are being imposed upon to work 50+ hours a week; it's as if they're not entitled to meaningful lives of their own. How are they expected to find the time to enrich themselves, let alone start families?
Some folks might insist that KIPP-type jobs aren't being forced on anyone. But throughout the country, public school teachers are being laid off. So if these dedicated young teachers really want to make their passion a reality, their employment opportunities are likely to be very limited.
More often than not, after three years at a charter school, they're done with teaching!
It seems as if public schools throughout the nation are becoming public policy makers' favorite piñata. In Philadelphia, state funding cutbacks have forced the closing of 23 public schools. Yet state officials managed to uncover some miraculous monetary honeypot to fund a brand-spankin' new prison just north of Philly to the tune of $400 million!
Here in Chicago, 50 elementary schools, primarily in struggling neighborhoods, are being shut down. Programs, especially creative arts, are being butchered at many surviving schools as well. It has to be done because we're in dire financial straits, so they say. Yet the Emanuel administration is able to pony up financing for a new sports arena near the McCormick Place convention complex. This, despite the fact that two other publicly-financed athletic stadiums haven't even come close to paying for themselves:
1) Soldier Field, extensively and expensively renovated, primarily to benefit the Chicago Bears, who play eight
games a year there --- and ---
2) Cellullar Field
(nee: Comiskey Park) publicly funded to
the tune of $200 million for the owners of the
Chicago White Sox, who for the past few years have
had their rent payments waived owing to low
attendance. (The team owners were mandated to pay
rent to the Illinois Sports Finance Authority, technically
the owner of the stadium, assuming that paid attendance
figures exceeded a minimum threshold. Well,
that threshold hasn't been met for a while now).
At the same time, bids are being solicited for the establishment of more charter schools, despite their largely dubious records of success. The case is often made that the charter schools save the taxpayers money in contrast to public schools. Maybe so, but is that really a cause for pride? First of all, teachers' average salaries are lower because they tend not to hang around long enough to accumulate much seniority. Also, the charters are able to "cherry-pick" their students --- generally the least "expensive" ones, not those with special needs. Unrestricted enrollment may be mandated, but they can ultimately drop pupils who don't conform to their standards. Rejected students are, of course, shunted back to the public schools.
Here in my home town, the mayor hand-picks the school board which largely controls policy with precious little public input. There are seven board members: a retired university dean, a retired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principal, and five corporate poobahs. So, guess whose interests predominate!
Mayor Emanuel's latest appointment is an investment advisor named Deborah Quazzo who, just incidentally, sends her three children to the exclusive Chicago Latin School. Her firm, in which she's a managing partner, focuses on private equity investments in education. She also sits on the board of a nation-wide chain of charter schools known as KIPP: an acronym standing for "Knowledge Is Power Program". (There are five KIPP schools in Chicago. Nationally, on average, KIPP schools do not perform especially well in contrast to average public schools, and generally well below college-prep public schools).
Anyway, here's the kicker: I scoped out KIPP's website listing of employment opportunities. It features a group photo of racially and ethnically diverse young teachers, all fresh-faced and hot-to-trot --- y'know, like a "big family". Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these teachers are very earnest and well-intentioned, and really do want to make a dent!
But here's what's expected of them. In return for "competitive salaries and benefits", they're scheduled to work 50 hours a week: (M-F 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM). In addition Saturday "volunteering" is an option, but "almost everyone does it". (Hmm! What kind of performance review might a "non-volunteer" expect?). (Personal note: I've done plenty of volunteer work in my life; it's satisfying and life-affirming. But volunteerism has never been "implied" as "part of my job").
Decades ago, labor activists fought --- and some even died --- for the 40-hour, 5-day work week. Yet, dedicated young teachers at charter schools like KIPP, are being imposed upon to work 50+ hours a week; it's as if they're not entitled to meaningful lives of their own. How are they expected to find the time to enrich themselves, let alone start families?
Some folks might insist that KIPP-type jobs aren't being forced on anyone. But throughout the country, public school teachers are being laid off. So if these dedicated young teachers really want to make their passion a reality, their employment opportunities are likely to be very limited.
More often than not, after three years at a charter school, they're done with teaching!
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Here's Your Pity: Now Stand Down and Have a Cookie!
Last week, Governor Pat McCrory (R-North Carolina) signed a draconian anti-abortion bill effectively closing most of the state's women's health clinics. Although abortions were targeted in the bill, because of the manner in which the measure was crafted, many North Carolina women will be denied basic health-sustaining services well beyond the realm of abortion. (Incidentally, during his campaign, he specifically promised that he would not sign off on any such legislation).
In the wake of his action, a concerned group of women conducted a 12-hour vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh. The Good Governor responded with what he evidently perceived as a good-will offering: a plate of chocolate-chip cookies which he personally presented to one of the demonstrators. Without missing a beat, the group returned the untouched cookies with a note on the plate reading, "We want women's health care, not cookies."
Was there some sort of subliminal message intended, such as an implication that women should be home baking cookies? And having babies? Or was it simply an attempt by the guv to make himself feel good? Several years ago, I recall watching a profile of Ronald Reagan; if my memory serves me, it was a public television documentary.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan was condemned for promoting mean-spirited economic policies; in effect punishing the poor for having the temerity to be poor. His reaction? He gave an economically-troubled woman $5,000 out of his own pocket, evidently because he was moved by her story. The documentary demonstrated just how affected Mr. Reagan was by this woman's plight --- on a personal level, one on one.
Yet many folks like Governor McCrory and President Reagan can't seem to make the logical leap. Whether in the realm of sexual relations or economic matters, they preach "personal responsibility". Yet when faced with personal appeals, they'll interact on a personal level. But the unseen millions affected by the same challenging issues seem to be out of sight and out of mind.
Many of McCrory's and Reagan's kindred spirits seem to believe that charities and private largesse can address the nation's ills; and that folks should stop having sex until they're ready to tie the knot and start making babies. Don't get me wrong, charities do yeoman work. But they've never had the resources to address more than a fraction of the nation's needs, especially in times of economic distress. And sexual abstention? In 2013? Get real!
In virtually every industrialized society, government social programs play a significant role. On this side of the pond, Social Security and Medicare have proven to be a godsend. Every mainstream poll validates the popularity of these programs, despite the rants of the government-hating sour-grapes. And furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not endorse governmental probes of women's vaginas --- or the denial of basic health services.
A personal note to Governor McCrory: Sharing is virtuous, but please keep your cookies to yourself!
In the wake of his action, a concerned group of women conducted a 12-hour vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh. The Good Governor responded with what he evidently perceived as a good-will offering: a plate of chocolate-chip cookies which he personally presented to one of the demonstrators. Without missing a beat, the group returned the untouched cookies with a note on the plate reading, "We want women's health care, not cookies."
Was there some sort of subliminal message intended, such as an implication that women should be home baking cookies? And having babies? Or was it simply an attempt by the guv to make himself feel good? Several years ago, I recall watching a profile of Ronald Reagan; if my memory serves me, it was a public television documentary.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan was condemned for promoting mean-spirited economic policies; in effect punishing the poor for having the temerity to be poor. His reaction? He gave an economically-troubled woman $5,000 out of his own pocket, evidently because he was moved by her story. The documentary demonstrated just how affected Mr. Reagan was by this woman's plight --- on a personal level, one on one.
Yet many folks like Governor McCrory and President Reagan can't seem to make the logical leap. Whether in the realm of sexual relations or economic matters, they preach "personal responsibility". Yet when faced with personal appeals, they'll interact on a personal level. But the unseen millions affected by the same challenging issues seem to be out of sight and out of mind.
Many of McCrory's and Reagan's kindred spirits seem to believe that charities and private largesse can address the nation's ills; and that folks should stop having sex until they're ready to tie the knot and start making babies. Don't get me wrong, charities do yeoman work. But they've never had the resources to address more than a fraction of the nation's needs, especially in times of economic distress. And sexual abstention? In 2013? Get real!
In virtually every industrialized society, government social programs play a significant role. On this side of the pond, Social Security and Medicare have proven to be a godsend. Every mainstream poll validates the popularity of these programs, despite the rants of the government-hating sour-grapes. And furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not endorse governmental probes of women's vaginas --- or the denial of basic health services.
A personal note to Governor McCrory: Sharing is virtuous, but please keep your cookies to yourself!
Thursday, July 18, 2013
A Must-Read: Especially for Anyone Who Votes Republican
I just finished reading an article I had stumbled across in my Twitter feed; it's from a recent issue of Vanity Fair.
Its author, a seasoned journalist named Kurt Eichenwald has illustrated the abject cruelty of many right-wing legislators from a very personal perspective --- in a manner which I never could. (Just google [or "bing", if you prefer], My Family, Our Cancer to read the article. It's well worth it!).
I often wonder whether many of the folks who cast their votes for these uncompromising, uninformed legislators --- not only in Texas --- ever fully realize the consequences of their ballot choices.
Recalling my experiences as a volunteer canvasser, primarily in metro Chicago, southern Wisconsin, and northwest Indiana, I can readily recall hundreds of folks I've met in my travels, who seemed to be very nice, decent people --- the kind of folks who'd immediately rush to help someone in distress. Yet without missing a beat, they declare their allegiance to candidates with agendas that betray a spirit of meanness.
I often think to myself, "How can we get through to these people? They're not evil beings." Yet, who has the time to read Vanity Fair? So many wage-earners are working multiple part-time jobs these days, just trying to cobble together a survival-level income. And they're working damned hard, too! With whatever free time they have, they just wanna kick back and relax. Who can blame them?
Really, about all we can do is keep after the folks who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012, but sat out 2010: the young voters especially. Next year's midterm elections will be vital. The Rick Perrys and Scott Walkers do not reflect our true values either as a society or as individuals. Nor does Congress. (Issue-oriented polls prove it).
We can and must do better in 2014.
Its author, a seasoned journalist named Kurt Eichenwald has illustrated the abject cruelty of many right-wing legislators from a very personal perspective --- in a manner which I never could. (Just google [or "bing", if you prefer], My Family, Our Cancer to read the article. It's well worth it!).
I often wonder whether many of the folks who cast their votes for these uncompromising, uninformed legislators --- not only in Texas --- ever fully realize the consequences of their ballot choices.
Recalling my experiences as a volunteer canvasser, primarily in metro Chicago, southern Wisconsin, and northwest Indiana, I can readily recall hundreds of folks I've met in my travels, who seemed to be very nice, decent people --- the kind of folks who'd immediately rush to help someone in distress. Yet without missing a beat, they declare their allegiance to candidates with agendas that betray a spirit of meanness.
I often think to myself, "How can we get through to these people? They're not evil beings." Yet, who has the time to read Vanity Fair? So many wage-earners are working multiple part-time jobs these days, just trying to cobble together a survival-level income. And they're working damned hard, too! With whatever free time they have, they just wanna kick back and relax. Who can blame them?
Really, about all we can do is keep after the folks who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012, but sat out 2010: the young voters especially. Next year's midterm elections will be vital. The Rick Perrys and Scott Walkers do not reflect our true values either as a society or as individuals. Nor does Congress. (Issue-oriented polls prove it).
We can and must do better in 2014.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Republican Texas Legislators are NOT "Pro-Life".
I'd like to believe that the genie is out of the bottle, at least in the state of Texas. Last week, State Senator Wendy Davis successfully filibustered a draconian anti-women's-choice bill that would have shut down many of the state's women's health clinics.
Unfortunately, it was a pyrrhic victory. The legislature reconvened this week and passed the measure, known as Senate Bill 1 (SB1). But many folks are fighting back. The testimony of an eloquent young woman named Sarah Slamen was captured on video which has since gone viral. (Just google "youtube" and key "Sarah Slamen" in the Youtube search engine).
As the video shows, Ms. Slamen was forcibly removed from the room before her allotted time was up --- as directed by Jane Nelson (R-12th), the chairman of the Senate Committee on --- uh --- Health & Human Services(!!!) Not a pretty picture.
SB1 forbids abortions beyond 20 weeks of fertilization. However, the devil is in the details. Because of the way the bill was crafted, forcing abortion clinics to adopt the same standards as hospital-style clinics, all but five of the 42 women's health clinics performing abortions --- even on embryos --- would likely be forced to close. And Texas isn't the only state affected.
Similar statutes have been legislated in other states dominated by Tea Party Republicans, including North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, also resulting in clinic closures.
According to the Center for Disease Control, over 90% of abortions nationwide are performed during the first trimester (12 weeks); in other words, on embryos. In contrast, SB1, with its 20-week threshold, would apply to only 1.3% of all abortions. Yet the bill would effectively make it exceedingly difficult for most women to obtain any abortion.
I believe that there are many folks who truly believe in the sanctity of life: people of good will. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago composed a document he called The Consistency of Life Ethic. Also known as the Principle of the Seamless Garment (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), the ethic questions the death penalty and unjust wars, as well as economic and social injustices.
Yet Texas Governor Rick Perry and his legislative allies have presided over more executions than their counterparts in any other state. They've also butchered funding for education, health, and nutrition programs, all of which help make the lives of struggling Texans more bearable. Pro-life?
Still, the Good Governor heralded the passage of SB1 with the following statement: " (Today) the Texas legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life." No shame, no shame at all!
Some political prognosticators believe that, considering the rapid demographic change occurring in the Lone Star State, that its political complexion could turn purple by 2016. That might seem a bit bold, but it would be nice.
In the meantime, it's reassuring to hear some voices emerging from the wilderness, such as those of Wendy Davis and Sarah Slamen. It's a start!
Unfortunately, it was a pyrrhic victory. The legislature reconvened this week and passed the measure, known as Senate Bill 1 (SB1). But many folks are fighting back. The testimony of an eloquent young woman named Sarah Slamen was captured on video which has since gone viral. (Just google "youtube" and key "Sarah Slamen" in the Youtube search engine).
As the video shows, Ms. Slamen was forcibly removed from the room before her allotted time was up --- as directed by Jane Nelson (R-12th), the chairman of the Senate Committee on --- uh --- Health & Human Services(!!!) Not a pretty picture.
SB1 forbids abortions beyond 20 weeks of fertilization. However, the devil is in the details. Because of the way the bill was crafted, forcing abortion clinics to adopt the same standards as hospital-style clinics, all but five of the 42 women's health clinics performing abortions --- even on embryos --- would likely be forced to close. And Texas isn't the only state affected.
Similar statutes have been legislated in other states dominated by Tea Party Republicans, including North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, also resulting in clinic closures.
According to the Center for Disease Control, over 90% of abortions nationwide are performed during the first trimester (12 weeks); in other words, on embryos. In contrast, SB1, with its 20-week threshold, would apply to only 1.3% of all abortions. Yet the bill would effectively make it exceedingly difficult for most women to obtain any abortion.
I believe that there are many folks who truly believe in the sanctity of life: people of good will. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago composed a document he called The Consistency of Life Ethic. Also known as the Principle of the Seamless Garment (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), the ethic questions the death penalty and unjust wars, as well as economic and social injustices.
Yet Texas Governor Rick Perry and his legislative allies have presided over more executions than their counterparts in any other state. They've also butchered funding for education, health, and nutrition programs, all of which help make the lives of struggling Texans more bearable. Pro-life?
Still, the Good Governor heralded the passage of SB1 with the following statement: " (Today) the Texas legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life." No shame, no shame at all!
Some political prognosticators believe that, considering the rapid demographic change occurring in the Lone Star State, that its political complexion could turn purple by 2016. That might seem a bit bold, but it would be nice.
In the meantime, it's reassuring to hear some voices emerging from the wilderness, such as those of Wendy Davis and Sarah Slamen. It's a start!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)