"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As you no doubt know, the preceding quote is from the Declaration of Independence. Our resignation letter from the British Empire, you might say. It speaks of what the American colonies believed were the rights of every citizen. This belief, that "all men are created equal" sits at the heart of the US Constitution. A document that attempts to codify the principles of fairness and equality for all Americans.
So why is it that, after 235 years, we are still struggling to live up to the ideals Thomas Jefferson put to paper all those years ago? In 2011 we are still debating whether particular Americans deserve the same rights as the rest. Should they be treated differently by the law? Do they have the right to do what their neighbors have always been free to do? Should you be payed the same wage as the person sitting next to you who does the same job? These questions, to me at least, are astonishing in that we are even asking them. I'm sure someone reading this is already trying to determine who I'm referring to in each question. But why? Does it matter? I don't recall the Constitution or it's amendments having any asterisks tucked away in the text.
Does it change the answer if I'm referring to an America who is gay as opposed to straight? Does it matter if it's an American man or woman? Does it matter if the American is lighter or darker skinned than me? The Constitution certainly wasn't written to only apply to certain Americans and not others. Each of us can point to someone we know who will eagerly agree that America is the land of equality and that everyone has the right to reach any level of society if they work for it. But if you mention homosexual or muslim, how many of them will get nervous and start looking for the right way to explain how that's different.
Personally I can't even grasp the idea of paying a qualified woman less than a man for the same job. It wouldn't even be an option to weigh! She's qualified, she has X years experience, so let's offer her X salary, based on that criteria. I don't get how someone can actually go out of their way and fight to prevent two gay Americans from marrying. I understand that some would have personal issues with it, perhaps, but to campaign to stop it? It has zero effect on them, so why do they spend their time and money trying to stop two people who love each other from formalizing their relationship as everyone else is allowed to do? Something every OTHER American is allowed to do.
America was built to be a meritocracy. A level playing field. The founders wanted to escape a world where the circumstances of your birth would be the prime determining factor in what you could do or become. They wanted to do away with the aristocracy and a class system that dictated who could do what and who deserved which rights. So they created a government built on these principles of equality and fair play. You can see it in the painstaking way the Constitution lays out the United States government, with careful checks and balances to spread the power. It's inefficient, but it's about as fair as any single document could manage. But leave it to us to screw it up!
How many years after we declared those "self evident" truths till we stopped the practice of owning other people? How long till we gave roughly half our population the right to vote? How long till we finally admitted that the color of your skin did not limit your Constitutional rights? And how much longer before we stop pretending that who a person is intimately attracted to has any bearing whatsoever on their worth or rights? How much longer till, as a nation, we finally stop dictating what makes a 'proper' marriage or a proper American?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
OK for Some
I think what most surprises me about this whole Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is how much press it's generated. There have been a lot of scandals in DC over the last decade, yet I don't recall any scandal since Clinton getting this much attention for this long. Why? Yes, I know, he sent salacious messages and some dirty pics to a few women he met via his Twitter and Facebook feeds. Yes, as a married man, this was wrong. But . . . I still don't see the fuel for this perpetual media machine. I suppose the highly partisan climate of the last three years is part of it. That's obviously behind the vocal, and quite hypocritical calls for Weiner to resign. I say hypocritical because there wasn't, and still isn't, much concern over Senator David Vitter's own scandal involving his frequenting the 'DC Madame'. One report I heard said that there was a record of a call by Vitter from the floor of the Senate during a vote! What makes it worse, in my estimation, is that he's another of those holier-than-though Republicans who constantly talks up the sanctity of marriage. Call me old fashioned, but I think a married, 'family values' Senator frequenting prostitutes is a bit more damning than sending a picture of your privates to a woman you've been flirting with online. Neither will win you any awards, but the latter has the distinct saving grace of not being illegal. And yet, Vitter is still a Senator and none of his Republican colleagues, so enraged by Weiner's indiscretion, have uttered a peep against him. Curious, eh?
I really do wonder how much of this is due to the 'ew' factor. Is it mostly because so many are shocked at the whole social networking angle of Weiners scandal? I think some people are just weirded out by the online affair aspect. Would there be as much attention if he had just been caught schtupping a member of his staff? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering how quickly the airwaves went deaf to the John Ensign scandal. Don't recall that? Let me refresh your memory. Senator Ensign only recently resigned from office, and rather suddenly at that. As luck would have it, his last day in office was the day before he was set to testify in front of the Senate Ethics Committee to face questions of not just his infidelities with a married staffer, but also the allegedly illegal ways he went about trying to keep it secret. Including violating lobbying laws to get the husband of the woman he was sleeping with, also a staffer and family friend, a lobbying gig after Ensign canned them both. (That's class, isn't it? Caught sleeping with a staffer so you fire her and her husband!) And let's not forget the roughly $90,000 he talked his wealthy parents into giving to his lover and her husband to sweep the whole thing under the rug. The Ethics Committee had so much evidence that, even after Ensign skipped out of the Senate, they still handed it all off to the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission for consideration of criminal charges. Now, call me partisan, but that's more than just a case of infidelity!
The problem, as I see it, is that we have never had an actual guide to go by when gauging the severity of personal indiscretions by politicians. It's always been a crap shoot. Often the deciding factor had more to do with the persons position, power and friends than what was actually done. My own personal yardstick starts with the most obvious question; were laws broken? Considering that we are talking about the people who draw up laws for the rest of us, it's only fair to expect them to be held to the same rules of conduct as the rest of the nation. Next would come professional ethics, such as the rules of the House and Senate. These I'm a little more flexible on, as some are obviously more trivial than others. But there's no question that getting down and dirty with your lover in your Capital Hill office would edge across the line into unacceptable behavior for a member of Congress. But a 10 minutes phone call from that same office or an email from a private account is more of a gray area. After all, most places of business recognize your right to an occasional few minutes of personal time. That doesn't mean anything goes, but there's more leeway there. It gets extremely gray after that, since much of the outrage seems to boil down to what each individual finds personally offensive and that's the very definition of subjective! What we most need, however, is consistency! Set some rules for behavior. Lay out what is your personal life and what is unarguably a professional matter. Personal mistakes in judgement may not say good things about you, but in the end, they are just that, personal. It's only when you cross the line into professional behavior that it becomes more than just a tabloid sensation.
Probably the biggest issue used to beat up Congressman Weiner is one that is the same for all of these scandals; lying. Once you get past the purely political criticisms and the disgust from those who can't get past the basic idea of sending anatomical pictures over the internet, you are left with this one complaint. For 10 days he stood in front of the cameras and lied about not sending the picture that had just gone public. He always hedged on the question of whether the picture was of him or not, which did stand out as a bit odd at the time. But should we really be surprised that he lied about it? And does a lie about a highly personal matter mean you are generally untrustworthy? Some would certainly hold the line and say that the lie means he can never be trusted again. I disagree. We all lie. Some of us are better than others about it, but we all lie occasionally. The two times we are most likely to lie are to protect someone, either physically or emotionally, and when we are protecting ourselves from personal embarrassment. And the more acute and potentially damaging that embarrassment, the more likely we are to lie. All of us. We may pretend we are pinnacles of virtue, but very few of us can truly claim innocence. And when all is said and done, if there is one place I would expect someone to lie, it's when a room full of reporters asks you if you sent a photo of your obviously happy johnson attempting to escape your underwear. I don't think that means you can never be trusted. I think that makes you human. That lie may be wrong, but it doesn't mean that same person will be any more likely to lie about a policy position than another politician. Believe me, I'd consider a law ejecting elected officials for documented lies! This would also have the added benefit of making term limits redundant by guaranteeing constant turnover in the houses of Congress.
As I write this, reports are trickling out that Congressman Weiner is resigning. On one level, it's certainly his choice what's best for him and his wife. On another level, I'm a bit ticked. I feel like he was forced into this, not because it was a heinous act, but because the nature of it made people uncomfortable and it was politically expedient for the Democrats to sacrifice him. By allowing and in fact enabling Weiner's critics the Democrats have once again capitulated to Republicans and validated their rampant hypocrisy. They could have at least put full pressure on Vitter to do the same! But I suppose Rachel Maddow was right, as she put it in one of her segments, I guess 'it's all right if you're a Republican'.
I really do wonder how much of this is due to the 'ew' factor. Is it mostly because so many are shocked at the whole social networking angle of Weiners scandal? I think some people are just weirded out by the online affair aspect. Would there be as much attention if he had just been caught schtupping a member of his staff? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering how quickly the airwaves went deaf to the John Ensign scandal. Don't recall that? Let me refresh your memory. Senator Ensign only recently resigned from office, and rather suddenly at that. As luck would have it, his last day in office was the day before he was set to testify in front of the Senate Ethics Committee to face questions of not just his infidelities with a married staffer, but also the allegedly illegal ways he went about trying to keep it secret. Including violating lobbying laws to get the husband of the woman he was sleeping with, also a staffer and family friend, a lobbying gig after Ensign canned them both. (That's class, isn't it? Caught sleeping with a staffer so you fire her and her husband!) And let's not forget the roughly $90,000 he talked his wealthy parents into giving to his lover and her husband to sweep the whole thing under the rug. The Ethics Committee had so much evidence that, even after Ensign skipped out of the Senate, they still handed it all off to the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission for consideration of criminal charges. Now, call me partisan, but that's more than just a case of infidelity!
The problem, as I see it, is that we have never had an actual guide to go by when gauging the severity of personal indiscretions by politicians. It's always been a crap shoot. Often the deciding factor had more to do with the persons position, power and friends than what was actually done. My own personal yardstick starts with the most obvious question; were laws broken? Considering that we are talking about the people who draw up laws for the rest of us, it's only fair to expect them to be held to the same rules of conduct as the rest of the nation. Next would come professional ethics, such as the rules of the House and Senate. These I'm a little more flexible on, as some are obviously more trivial than others. But there's no question that getting down and dirty with your lover in your Capital Hill office would edge across the line into unacceptable behavior for a member of Congress. But a 10 minutes phone call from that same office or an email from a private account is more of a gray area. After all, most places of business recognize your right to an occasional few minutes of personal time. That doesn't mean anything goes, but there's more leeway there. It gets extremely gray after that, since much of the outrage seems to boil down to what each individual finds personally offensive and that's the very definition of subjective! What we most need, however, is consistency! Set some rules for behavior. Lay out what is your personal life and what is unarguably a professional matter. Personal mistakes in judgement may not say good things about you, but in the end, they are just that, personal. It's only when you cross the line into professional behavior that it becomes more than just a tabloid sensation.
Probably the biggest issue used to beat up Congressman Weiner is one that is the same for all of these scandals; lying. Once you get past the purely political criticisms and the disgust from those who can't get past the basic idea of sending anatomical pictures over the internet, you are left with this one complaint. For 10 days he stood in front of the cameras and lied about not sending the picture that had just gone public. He always hedged on the question of whether the picture was of him or not, which did stand out as a bit odd at the time. But should we really be surprised that he lied about it? And does a lie about a highly personal matter mean you are generally untrustworthy? Some would certainly hold the line and say that the lie means he can never be trusted again. I disagree. We all lie. Some of us are better than others about it, but we all lie occasionally. The two times we are most likely to lie are to protect someone, either physically or emotionally, and when we are protecting ourselves from personal embarrassment. And the more acute and potentially damaging that embarrassment, the more likely we are to lie. All of us. We may pretend we are pinnacles of virtue, but very few of us can truly claim innocence. And when all is said and done, if there is one place I would expect someone to lie, it's when a room full of reporters asks you if you sent a photo of your obviously happy johnson attempting to escape your underwear. I don't think that means you can never be trusted. I think that makes you human. That lie may be wrong, but it doesn't mean that same person will be any more likely to lie about a policy position than another politician. Believe me, I'd consider a law ejecting elected officials for documented lies! This would also have the added benefit of making term limits redundant by guaranteeing constant turnover in the houses of Congress.
As I write this, reports are trickling out that Congressman Weiner is resigning. On one level, it's certainly his choice what's best for him and his wife. On another level, I'm a bit ticked. I feel like he was forced into this, not because it was a heinous act, but because the nature of it made people uncomfortable and it was politically expedient for the Democrats to sacrifice him. By allowing and in fact enabling Weiner's critics the Democrats have once again capitulated to Republicans and validated their rampant hypocrisy. They could have at least put full pressure on Vitter to do the same! But I suppose Rachel Maddow was right, as she put it in one of her segments, I guess 'it's all right if you're a Republican'.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Privilege or Right?
If there's one thing that everyone can agree on it's that healthcare is expensive. Unfortunately that's about all we can agree on. As I listened to the 2009 - 2010 health reform 'debate' and the many ripples that it spawned I kept coming back to the same question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? This seems to be the real heart of the matter, at least for those not associated with an insurance or pharmaceutical company. That's really what we're debating isn't it?
On the liberal/progressive side are those who see this as a basic rights issue. They believe that access to medical care should be something all Americans can count on, no matter their financial status. On the conservative end of the spectrum it seems to be viewed as more of a luxury and that access should be something you must work for and earn. Now conservatives won't put it that way exactly, but that's really the unspoken truth behind all the careful prose. They want to sound like they care, but in the end they always seem to rely on going to the Emergency Room as the fallback position. As if that's some sort of cost cutting measure, which it most certainly is not. That just pushes the cost around, out of sight, till it's paid for by all of us in one shape or form.
I'm sure it's obvious where I stand in this debate. For me it comes down to a simple question of whether a person's lifespan and basic health should rest solely on the size of their paycheck. Is a subcontracting carpenter less worthy of a long, healthy life simply because his job doesn't afford him health insurance and he may or may not be able to afford a policy on his own? Is a network administrator's life more important because his job usually provides health insurance? And even if you remove the employer subsidized insurance from the equation, a net admin makes more than most carpenters, so he would be much more likely to be able to afford insurance on his own. Put it this way, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will never want for medical care, no matter what ailment he may suffer from. However a single mom working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet will have difficulty paying for treatment of a simple broken bone, much less something like cancer. So is the CEO more deserving of life than the single mom because he has a high paying job with top of the line health insurance?
We in America like to think we have the best medical care the world has to offer. And, in part, that may be true, based on how many of the world's great and powerful come here for treatment. But it's important to remember that medical care and health care are two completely different things. Medical care is the actual skill of the medical staff, the technology they wield and their ability to apply both to cure a condition or manage it for the best quality of life. Medical care is not concerned with cost, only results. Health care on the other hand is all about cost. Health care is exclusively focused on how much medical care you are allowed by your insurance and/or your personal finances. So America may indeed have stellar medical care, but that doesn't mean all Americans are in a position to actually benefit from it.
And that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue, isn't it? Stop blathering about 'death panels' and socialism. Strip away the histrionics, the hyperbole and the euphemisms and admit what this is really all about! Is a person's life only as valuable as his paycheck?
On the liberal/progressive side are those who see this as a basic rights issue. They believe that access to medical care should be something all Americans can count on, no matter their financial status. On the conservative end of the spectrum it seems to be viewed as more of a luxury and that access should be something you must work for and earn. Now conservatives won't put it that way exactly, but that's really the unspoken truth behind all the careful prose. They want to sound like they care, but in the end they always seem to rely on going to the Emergency Room as the fallback position. As if that's some sort of cost cutting measure, which it most certainly is not. That just pushes the cost around, out of sight, till it's paid for by all of us in one shape or form.
I'm sure it's obvious where I stand in this debate. For me it comes down to a simple question of whether a person's lifespan and basic health should rest solely on the size of their paycheck. Is a subcontracting carpenter less worthy of a long, healthy life simply because his job doesn't afford him health insurance and he may or may not be able to afford a policy on his own? Is a network administrator's life more important because his job usually provides health insurance? And even if you remove the employer subsidized insurance from the equation, a net admin makes more than most carpenters, so he would be much more likely to be able to afford insurance on his own. Put it this way, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will never want for medical care, no matter what ailment he may suffer from. However a single mom working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet will have difficulty paying for treatment of a simple broken bone, much less something like cancer. So is the CEO more deserving of life than the single mom because he has a high paying job with top of the line health insurance?
We in America like to think we have the best medical care the world has to offer. And, in part, that may be true, based on how many of the world's great and powerful come here for treatment. But it's important to remember that medical care and health care are two completely different things. Medical care is the actual skill of the medical staff, the technology they wield and their ability to apply both to cure a condition or manage it for the best quality of life. Medical care is not concerned with cost, only results. Health care on the other hand is all about cost. Health care is exclusively focused on how much medical care you are allowed by your insurance and/or your personal finances. So America may indeed have stellar medical care, but that doesn't mean all Americans are in a position to actually benefit from it.
And that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue, isn't it? Stop blathering about 'death panels' and socialism. Strip away the histrionics, the hyperbole and the euphemisms and admit what this is really all about! Is a person's life only as valuable as his paycheck?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Who Can You Trust?
Only the most naive would actually believe everything a politician said into a microphone or wrote on paper. It's pretty much axiomatic that even conservatives are liberal when it comes to the truth. But even knowing that, we still tend to assume that, at the core, there is some truth hiding there. We expect hyperbole, but most people, deep down, assume that a given statement is based on fact. We really have to believe that, don't we? Because once you lose even that little fragment of trust, what does that leave you with?
In what has become a huge media and social networking phenomenon, United States Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) stepped beyond hyperbole in a statement from the floor of the US Senate. During the last days of the budget battle, a little over a week ago, the whole budget agreement seemed to come down to the funding of Planned Parenthood. According to one source, federal money accounts for about a third of Planned Parenthood's total funding. It's an odd sticking point for the entire federal budget, since this item makes up a mere sliver of the, already tiny, slice that is discretionary spending. It would be like a married couple, budgeting for the year, in a knock-down drag-out over the purchase of single caramel latte! This is far more about social agendas than budgetary restraint. Not to mention that we already have a regularly invoked provision, the Hyde Amendment, that has restricted Federal funding for abortion services since 1976! It's so inconvenient when these 'facts' disrupt a perfectly good narrative though, isn't it?
Jon Kyl's place in this debate was immortalized when he claimed that abortions made up "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." It's, of course, normal for a conservative to wave the red flag of abortion to rile the base, but the percentage he stated raised everyone's eyebrows. Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, put it this way. "I'd love to see that statistic checked by, uh... Anyone!" Apparently many felt this way and when CNN, MSNBC and others contacted Kyl's office to ask where the statistic had come from, the Senator's spokesman informed them that, Kyl's "remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions." Further investigation turned up the real statistic, which was about 3%. As Stephen Colbert put it very well, Kyl "just rounded up to the nearest 90."
Humor aside, and there was a lot of that in the days following the Senator's statement, what does this say about even the most basic filament of trust in our elected government? If he had announced that "much of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion" he would have been guilty of hyperbole. Pretty wild hyperbole, but still just exaggeration. But he didn't say that. He used a percentage that was calculated to sound like a fact. I believe that was exactly what it was- a calculated decision to say something that would make those for whom abortion is a trigger issue, gasp in horror. He lied, clearly and with every intention of misleading.
Am I naive to think that blatant lies by politicians should be shocking? Or have we just become so jaded that we are more shocked by truth? This is actually a very important issue. We don't have to believe every word of every statement, but where does it leave us, as a country, when we just assume we are being lied to all the time? Shouldn't we be outraged when it gets to this point? Even the constituency Kyl was pandering to should feel betrayed because he was obviously just manipulating them like pawns on a chess board. Or is manipulation OK as long as it seems, as far we know, to coincide with our individual beliefs?
Personally, I don't want to be lied to by politicians, whether I agree with their aims or not. Truth is the only way a democracy can function. Once lying becomes the norm, that's when the government becomes little more than an authoritarian state where the 'unwashed masses' just do what they are told. When I write something and I'm going to cite an absolute of some kind, such as a cost or percentage, I look it up. I find what seems to be a trustworthy source for the information I plan to quote. I could just make up numbers that fit my narrative, but I can't. It's not because I never lie, ever. It's because I have a certain sense of personal integrity that will not allow me to just make something up. That's what I expect from elected officials, naive though that may sound to some. This isn't pie in the sky idealism! I don't expect them to be paragons of honor and virtue, but at some point, where it really matters, I expect a basic level of personal integrity. You can lie about some personal foible and I may be disappointed, but when the lies affect thousands or millions of people who have put their trust in you, then I have no sympathy to give. It's way over used, but it's also a truism. With great power comes great responsibility. We must demand more from our government. If not, every lie uttered without repercussion adds another crack to the foundation of our democracy. To those who say I'm just gullible or naive to feel this way and that this is not how the world works, I have to ask, how long can a democracy last when the government realizes that it no longer has to tell us the truth at all?
In what has become a huge media and social networking phenomenon, United States Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) stepped beyond hyperbole in a statement from the floor of the US Senate. During the last days of the budget battle, a little over a week ago, the whole budget agreement seemed to come down to the funding of Planned Parenthood. According to one source, federal money accounts for about a third of Planned Parenthood's total funding. It's an odd sticking point for the entire federal budget, since this item makes up a mere sliver of the, already tiny, slice that is discretionary spending. It would be like a married couple, budgeting for the year, in a knock-down drag-out over the purchase of single caramel latte! This is far more about social agendas than budgetary restraint. Not to mention that we already have a regularly invoked provision, the Hyde Amendment, that has restricted Federal funding for abortion services since 1976! It's so inconvenient when these 'facts' disrupt a perfectly good narrative though, isn't it?
Jon Kyl's place in this debate was immortalized when he claimed that abortions made up "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." It's, of course, normal for a conservative to wave the red flag of abortion to rile the base, but the percentage he stated raised everyone's eyebrows. Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, put it this way. "I'd love to see that statistic checked by, uh... Anyone!" Apparently many felt this way and when CNN, MSNBC and others contacted Kyl's office to ask where the statistic had come from, the Senator's spokesman informed them that, Kyl's "remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions." Further investigation turned up the real statistic, which was about 3%. As Stephen Colbert put it very well, Kyl "just rounded up to the nearest 90."
Humor aside, and there was a lot of that in the days following the Senator's statement, what does this say about even the most basic filament of trust in our elected government? If he had announced that "much of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion" he would have been guilty of hyperbole. Pretty wild hyperbole, but still just exaggeration. But he didn't say that. He used a percentage that was calculated to sound like a fact. I believe that was exactly what it was- a calculated decision to say something that would make those for whom abortion is a trigger issue, gasp in horror. He lied, clearly and with every intention of misleading.
Am I naive to think that blatant lies by politicians should be shocking? Or have we just become so jaded that we are more shocked by truth? This is actually a very important issue. We don't have to believe every word of every statement, but where does it leave us, as a country, when we just assume we are being lied to all the time? Shouldn't we be outraged when it gets to this point? Even the constituency Kyl was pandering to should feel betrayed because he was obviously just manipulating them like pawns on a chess board. Or is manipulation OK as long as it seems, as far we know, to coincide with our individual beliefs?
Personally, I don't want to be lied to by politicians, whether I agree with their aims or not. Truth is the only way a democracy can function. Once lying becomes the norm, that's when the government becomes little more than an authoritarian state where the 'unwashed masses' just do what they are told. When I write something and I'm going to cite an absolute of some kind, such as a cost or percentage, I look it up. I find what seems to be a trustworthy source for the information I plan to quote. I could just make up numbers that fit my narrative, but I can't. It's not because I never lie, ever. It's because I have a certain sense of personal integrity that will not allow me to just make something up. That's what I expect from elected officials, naive though that may sound to some. This isn't pie in the sky idealism! I don't expect them to be paragons of honor and virtue, but at some point, where it really matters, I expect a basic level of personal integrity. You can lie about some personal foible and I may be disappointed, but when the lies affect thousands or millions of people who have put their trust in you, then I have no sympathy to give. It's way over used, but it's also a truism. With great power comes great responsibility. We must demand more from our government. If not, every lie uttered without repercussion adds another crack to the foundation of our democracy. To those who say I'm just gullible or naive to feel this way and that this is not how the world works, I have to ask, how long can a democracy last when the government realizes that it no longer has to tell us the truth at all?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Fracking Stupid
There is a procedure being used in many areas around the US, and the world, called Hydraulic Fracturing. Also referred to as 'fracing' or 'fracking' for short. Put simply, this procedure uses high pressure to pump a liquid, often made up of water and various chemicals, to fracture the underground rock. This creates a high permeability conduit to allow otherwise difficult to access deposits of natural gas or oil to be extracted. It's being used heavily in many parts of the northeast region of the US to access natural gas deposits that would otherwise be difficult to extract.
Now think about this, a high pressure stream of water and various chemicals are injected deep underground to break up the rock strata. Is there anything about this that seems problematic? I know that when I first heard this described my initial thought was, "what about the ground water?" After all, we get much of our drinking water from underground aquifers. If we are pumping chemicals, some of which are known to be hazardous, into the ground and fracturing the surrounding rock, it's inevitable that this will contaminate ground water. There's no way to prevent it. I've seen film of well water emerging from a normal sink faucet that can be ignited by a simple cigarette lighter. Now you might think, that there are federal laws that protect our drinking water. Yes there are. However you might be surprised to know that the G.W.Bush administration and Congress passed legislation in 2005 exempting oil and gas companies from those pesky regulations.
Why are we and others around the world doing something that basic common sense says is blindingly stupid? Borderline suicidal, even? Because energy companies want to make more money. It doesn't matter if it's effective in extracting more natural gas and oil. It doesn't matter if this contributes any tiny bit to our energy independence. If the process is polluting our water supply, and there seems to be evidence beyond just having a functioning brain to indicate that it does, than who the frack cares if it's profitable or provides any energy independence?! It's a simple case of risk/benefit analysis. The risk to lives far outweighs any benefit that may be produced. And if an energy company's profits weren't involved or a politician's donations weren't involved we wouldn't even be having the discussion. You want a picture postcard of what's wrong with our corporate influenced system, then this is it!
Now think about this, a high pressure stream of water and various chemicals are injected deep underground to break up the rock strata. Is there anything about this that seems problematic? I know that when I first heard this described my initial thought was, "what about the ground water?" After all, we get much of our drinking water from underground aquifers. If we are pumping chemicals, some of which are known to be hazardous, into the ground and fracturing the surrounding rock, it's inevitable that this will contaminate ground water. There's no way to prevent it. I've seen film of well water emerging from a normal sink faucet that can be ignited by a simple cigarette lighter. Now you might think, that there are federal laws that protect our drinking water. Yes there are. However you might be surprised to know that the G.W.Bush administration and Congress passed legislation in 2005 exempting oil and gas companies from those pesky regulations.
Why are we and others around the world doing something that basic common sense says is blindingly stupid? Borderline suicidal, even? Because energy companies want to make more money. It doesn't matter if it's effective in extracting more natural gas and oil. It doesn't matter if this contributes any tiny bit to our energy independence. If the process is polluting our water supply, and there seems to be evidence beyond just having a functioning brain to indicate that it does, than who the frack cares if it's profitable or provides any energy independence?! It's a simple case of risk/benefit analysis. The risk to lives far outweighs any benefit that may be produced. And if an energy company's profits weren't involved or a politician's donations weren't involved we wouldn't even be having the discussion. You want a picture postcard of what's wrong with our corporate influenced system, then this is it!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Priorities
We've all been in the position where we had multiple problems but limited time or resources to address them. So what do you do? You look at your problems and figure out which is the most pressing. The one that absolutely can't be put off. The problem that threatens to overwhelm you if not dealt with as soon as possible. You may have several that at first glance seem equally important but, in almost every case, when you look closely and weigh the facts you will see that one is more of an emergency than the other. It may not be by a lot, but there is a difference. Once this is sorted out, you focus as much as you can on this one problem and resolve it, or at least make enough progress that you can set it aside in favor of a more pressing issue. Put simply, you prioritize.
This is what we all do everyday. We prioritize errands, bills, obligations and all the other things in life we have to address both good and bad. But as often seems to be the case, our elected leaders appear to have forgotten this, whether by intention or incompetence. I think most Americans would agree that the two most pressing problems, on a national level, are the economy, which includes unemployment, and the national debt. Since being swept into office last November on a wave of impatience and discontent, the Republicans have, between inexplicable bouts of anti-abortion and anti-union zeal, screamed to the rafters that we must cut spending. Cut, cut, cut. Now, now, now! They say the government is spending too much and while true this is hardly different from the previous eight years, when they were in charge. I agree that the debt is a huge problem. One of my early posts from 2004 was about the need to address the problem. Of course then the problem was only dire. It hadn't yet reached the level of obscenity we now face. So I'm fully in agreement that the debt must be faced and a plan set in place to reduce it.
However, one other thing has changed since 2004, when I first waved the red flag on our debt. You may even have noticed it when it occurred. It was when the economy dropped through the floor like a tank on balsa wood. Ring any bells? So here we sit, with unemployment hovering around 9% nationally and far worse in some areas. We've had some marginal growth, but it's been stuttering and uncertain. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at eye watering levels. In fact, the only people doing well are those who either had lots of money to cushion the fall or the robber barons who parked the tank there in the first place! To top it all off, Republicans, with misguided and grudging Democratic support, ladled another $700 billion to the debt over the next few years so the richest people in the nation wouldn't see a slight tax hike.
This complicates any plan to balance the budget and put even a smudge on the national debt. It's the same old story, when the economy is booming and we could actually afford to reduce the budget and make inroads against the debt without major cuts, everyone wants to spend, spend, spend. As soon as the economy sags, everyone is suddenly calling for the end to NPR funding and home heating oil subsidies for the poor. Aside from the questionable morals of taking aid away from the poor after ensuring the wealthy don't see a tax increase, there is the fact that cuts like these have no real effect on the budget. Most of the cuts I see proposed are all focused on balancing the budget from the tiniest slice of the whole pie, discretionary spending. They ignore the largest percentage made up of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid & Defense. Why? Because those would require real effort and debate. So much easier to just go for the easy pickings. The stuff you can get the base riled up about, but that won't really make a difference.
Want to deal with the budget? Focus on the economy! The most important thing is to get the economy growing and get millions back to work. That will scale back the bankruptcies, the foreclosures and spending on unemployment benefits. It will also generate revenue that can be used to balance the budget, along with some modest cuts. Remember, the underlying reason for the huge budget problems at the State and Federal levels stem from the recession. Yes, government has spent a lot in the last 3 years, but the reason it did, whether you agreed with the choices or not, was in direct response to economic strife. Propping up huge corporations so they wouldn't collapse and take large chunks of their fiscal neighbors with them. Trying to pump money into the system to keep the economy from flat lining. That's where the majority of our recent deficits came from. So focus on the economy. Get that running on all cylinders again and a significant percentage of the problem will correct itself. No, it won't solve it, but it will have a far greater and long lasting effect than any discretionary spending cuts. And if you're going to look at cuts, consider EVERYTHING, not just your pet, partisan punching bag. We will never balance the entire budget if we are only willing to make cuts to 15% of it!
This is what we all do everyday. We prioritize errands, bills, obligations and all the other things in life we have to address both good and bad. But as often seems to be the case, our elected leaders appear to have forgotten this, whether by intention or incompetence. I think most Americans would agree that the two most pressing problems, on a national level, are the economy, which includes unemployment, and the national debt. Since being swept into office last November on a wave of impatience and discontent, the Republicans have, between inexplicable bouts of anti-abortion and anti-union zeal, screamed to the rafters that we must cut spending. Cut, cut, cut. Now, now, now! They say the government is spending too much and while true this is hardly different from the previous eight years, when they were in charge. I agree that the debt is a huge problem. One of my early posts from 2004 was about the need to address the problem. Of course then the problem was only dire. It hadn't yet reached the level of obscenity we now face. So I'm fully in agreement that the debt must be faced and a plan set in place to reduce it.
However, one other thing has changed since 2004, when I first waved the red flag on our debt. You may even have noticed it when it occurred. It was when the economy dropped through the floor like a tank on balsa wood. Ring any bells? So here we sit, with unemployment hovering around 9% nationally and far worse in some areas. We've had some marginal growth, but it's been stuttering and uncertain. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at eye watering levels. In fact, the only people doing well are those who either had lots of money to cushion the fall or the robber barons who parked the tank there in the first place! To top it all off, Republicans, with misguided and grudging Democratic support, ladled another $700 billion to the debt over the next few years so the richest people in the nation wouldn't see a slight tax hike.
This complicates any plan to balance the budget and put even a smudge on the national debt. It's the same old story, when the economy is booming and we could actually afford to reduce the budget and make inroads against the debt without major cuts, everyone wants to spend, spend, spend. As soon as the economy sags, everyone is suddenly calling for the end to NPR funding and home heating oil subsidies for the poor. Aside from the questionable morals of taking aid away from the poor after ensuring the wealthy don't see a tax increase, there is the fact that cuts like these have no real effect on the budget. Most of the cuts I see proposed are all focused on balancing the budget from the tiniest slice of the whole pie, discretionary spending. They ignore the largest percentage made up of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid & Defense. Why? Because those would require real effort and debate. So much easier to just go for the easy pickings. The stuff you can get the base riled up about, but that won't really make a difference.
Want to deal with the budget? Focus on the economy! The most important thing is to get the economy growing and get millions back to work. That will scale back the bankruptcies, the foreclosures and spending on unemployment benefits. It will also generate revenue that can be used to balance the budget, along with some modest cuts. Remember, the underlying reason for the huge budget problems at the State and Federal levels stem from the recession. Yes, government has spent a lot in the last 3 years, but the reason it did, whether you agreed with the choices or not, was in direct response to economic strife. Propping up huge corporations so they wouldn't collapse and take large chunks of their fiscal neighbors with them. Trying to pump money into the system to keep the economy from flat lining. That's where the majority of our recent deficits came from. So focus on the economy. Get that running on all cylinders again and a significant percentage of the problem will correct itself. No, it won't solve it, but it will have a far greater and long lasting effect than any discretionary spending cuts. And if you're going to look at cuts, consider EVERYTHING, not just your pet, partisan punching bag. We will never balance the entire budget if we are only willing to make cuts to 15% of it!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The Government You Deserve
I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking, "I told you so". As last year's mid-terms approached and the crop of far Right candidates were looking more and more likely to win big, I saw it coming. Everyone should have, but Americans were, as usual, impatient and fickle. Two years of the Obama administration and Democrats in control (Senate excluded, of course) hadn't magically levitated us out of a deep recession yet, so obviously it was time to reverse the gears again. Well America did switch horses in the middle of the race and what a fine mess it's creating.
Republicans retook control of the House and promised that Jobs were the top priority. So what did they do with their first bills? A symbolic 'repeal' of Health Reform, which had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President. Followed by . . . wait for it, two bills focused on abortion. And not just the usual conservative anti-abortion style legislation. No, they decided that the best way to restrict abortions was to try and redefine what 'rape' actually meant! They actually tried to do it by making a distinction between 'rape' and 'forcible rape'! Let me quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary: Rape (noun)"forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with [them] without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them." I'm pretty sure that would be 'forcible rape'. I'm sure if one of these Republicans had a friend or family member who was raped, they would consider that 'forcible'. Welcome to the Republican controlled House, where we redefine the English language to fit our social policies!
Remember those promises newly minted Speaker Boehner and his colleagues made to 'fix' the House when they took over? Such as citing Constitutional precedent in all bills? Promise broken from day one. Promise to cut $100 Billion from the budget in their first year? Reality finally sets in and that number is dropping fast. Promise Broken. A promise to institute an 'Open Rules' process on all legislation so there would be debate and a chance to propose amendments? Promise broken day one. It took them over a month before they finally got around to keeping this promise, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being repeated after that.
What about State governments? A wave of Republican Governors were voted into office. Well, in Wisconsin we have Governor Scott Walker who has decided to address a budget shortfall by slashing public worker pay and benefits. But that's just the semi-normal part of the legislation. Another part of the proposed bill would strip many unions of their collective bargaining rights. A move that has zero budgetary effect, but certainly a large political effect. Rachel Maddow put it well on a recent show where she noted that Wisconsin is not in tough budgetary straits. Or they weren't until Governor Walker gave away about $140 Million in business tax incentives immediately after taking office. A number that is eerily close, oddly enough, to the current state shortfall. So while Governor Walker is attempting to make this a budgetary crises, what this really is about is politics. Union busting, not to save money, but as a direct attack on organizations who generally support Democratic candidates. Think this is just my misinterpretation? Then why did Gov. Walker exempt local police, firefighters and state troopers from his labor union attacks? Oddly enough, these are the three groups who supported his election campaign. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, right?
So welcome, America, to your newly elected conservative government! I just hope you weren't actually counting on them to help with the jobs crisis or the economy. After all, why work to address the 9% unemployment rate and quickly widening wage gap when you have the chance to redefine rape and strip unions of their bargaining rights? Welcome America, not to the government you wanted, but rather to the government you deserve!
Update: If you would like a good followup to the Wisconsin story, I suggest this.
Republicans retook control of the House and promised that Jobs were the top priority. So what did they do with their first bills? A symbolic 'repeal' of Health Reform, which had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President. Followed by . . . wait for it, two bills focused on abortion. And not just the usual conservative anti-abortion style legislation. No, they decided that the best way to restrict abortions was to try and redefine what 'rape' actually meant! They actually tried to do it by making a distinction between 'rape' and 'forcible rape'! Let me quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary: Rape (noun)"forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with [them] without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them." I'm pretty sure that would be 'forcible rape'. I'm sure if one of these Republicans had a friend or family member who was raped, they would consider that 'forcible'. Welcome to the Republican controlled House, where we redefine the English language to fit our social policies!
Remember those promises newly minted Speaker Boehner and his colleagues made to 'fix' the House when they took over? Such as citing Constitutional precedent in all bills? Promise broken from day one. Promise to cut $100 Billion from the budget in their first year? Reality finally sets in and that number is dropping fast. Promise Broken. A promise to institute an 'Open Rules' process on all legislation so there would be debate and a chance to propose amendments? Promise broken day one. It took them over a month before they finally got around to keeping this promise, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being repeated after that.
What about State governments? A wave of Republican Governors were voted into office. Well, in Wisconsin we have Governor Scott Walker who has decided to address a budget shortfall by slashing public worker pay and benefits. But that's just the semi-normal part of the legislation. Another part of the proposed bill would strip many unions of their collective bargaining rights. A move that has zero budgetary effect, but certainly a large political effect. Rachel Maddow put it well on a recent show where she noted that Wisconsin is not in tough budgetary straits. Or they weren't until Governor Walker gave away about $140 Million in business tax incentives immediately after taking office. A number that is eerily close, oddly enough, to the current state shortfall. So while Governor Walker is attempting to make this a budgetary crises, what this really is about is politics. Union busting, not to save money, but as a direct attack on organizations who generally support Democratic candidates. Think this is just my misinterpretation? Then why did Gov. Walker exempt local police, firefighters and state troopers from his labor union attacks? Oddly enough, these are the three groups who supported his election campaign. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, right?
So welcome, America, to your newly elected conservative government! I just hope you weren't actually counting on them to help with the jobs crisis or the economy. After all, why work to address the 9% unemployment rate and quickly widening wage gap when you have the chance to redefine rape and strip unions of their bargaining rights? Welcome America, not to the government you wanted, but rather to the government you deserve!
Update: If you would like a good followup to the Wisconsin story, I suggest this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
