The State of Kentucky is subsidizing the construction along U.S. Route 75 of a replica of Noah’s Ark along with other biblical projects in a religious park. The ark is to be built according to the dimensions set-out in the Bible. The state justifies this involvement in religion as a way of creating jobs for construction people and of attracting visitors from around the country to the park. The people behind the project are not doing it to create jobs, but rather, to provide inspiration and belief in the biblical account of Noah’s flood. They are fundamentalist Christians who really believe that there was such a flood and that there was a man named Noah who built an ark and saved his family and the animal kingdom from the flood.
Some time ago ABC News did a story about some Christian archeologists from Texas who claimed to have found the remnants of Noah’s Ark. They apparently found something that looked to them like the Ark on Mount Suleiman in Iran's Elburz mountain range rather than on Mount Ararat in Turkey, the site identified in Genesis 8:4. Nevertheless, they believed it was the Ark. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute--a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.
We have to wonder at the pathetic spectacle of “scientific” teams of grown people going out and climbing mountains to find the remains of Noah’s Ark. It is a little sad. Serious archeologists, geologists, historians, and theologians know that the story of Noah’s Ark is an ancient myth, a fairy tale, not history. It never really happened.
In the first place, there are two flood stories in Genesis. In one, God tells Noah that he is going to destroy sinful mankind with a flood and that Noah is to take his family and two of every kind of animal on board the Ark (Genesis 6:19). In the other, God directs Noah to take seven pairs of clean animals, of every type, and one pair of the unclean (Genesis 7:2). The reason that there are two stories is because there were different people who wrote different stories at different times which were later stitched together into what we now call Genesis. It was not written by Moses as is claimed in the Bible.
According to the Bible, the Ark was 300 cubits (about 450 feet) long. This is considerably longer than the largest wooden vessels ever built in historical times. Shipbuilders know that wooden ships over 300 feet long (the size of a football field) would not be able to float. The schooner Wyoming, launched in 1909, was the largest documented wooden-hulled cargo ship ever built. It measured only 350 feet and needed iron cross-bracing to counter warping and a steam pump to handle a serious leak problem.
Try to imagine fitting all those thousands of animals onto the Ark. There would be two (or seven) of every kind of elephant, rhinoceros, hippo, gorilla, ox, cow, horse, lion, tiger, bear, giraffe, wildabeeste, elk, moose, buffalo, etc. It would have been impossible for many of the animals to come from distant parts of the world. How could kangaroos and koalas get from Australia to the Middle East? How did Noah keep lions, tigers, bears, panthers, and hyenas from attacking deer, elk, antelope, sheep and other kinds of natural prey? How did Noah feed all those animals?
Anthropoligists and paleoanthropoligists have used fossils and DNA to trace the history of man. They know that our species originated in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. They recognize that man evolved from lower animals over a period of millions of years. There has been no worldwide flood interfering with human history. Moreover, geologists are unable to find any physical evidence of the kind of worldwide flood spoken about in the Bible.
The story of Noah and the Flood did not originate with the writers of the Hebrew Bible. It was borrowed from ancient Mesopotamian myths that precede the writing of the Bible by thousands of years. The Mesopotamian myths were written about different gods and different people.
The Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, written over a thousand years before the Hebrew Bible, is an account of a pious hero who is warned by the god Enki to build a great ship and load it with family and selected animals in order to escape the coming deluge. The rains come, and everybody else in the world is drowned. The ship grounds on a mountain in Armenia and the hero releases three birds. The third bird does not return. A sacrifice pleases the god, and the god promises never to send another flood. Sound familiar?
The Sumarian story of Ziusudra, and the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, both written thousands of years before the Bible, have similar stories. In the Babylonian flood myth, the central story is about a fight between the gods Marduk and Tiamat.
Fundamentalist Christians and Jews might argue that the building of the Ark was a miracle and that the whole story must be taken as miraculous. Why then do they expect to find the actual Ark? Surely if it was a miraculous vessel that God created only for that one period of time, it would not still survive today.
Fundamentalist Christians have constructed a “Creation Museum” out near the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport. In order to get there from Dayton, Ohio, the one has to drive over bedrock of Ordovician and Silurian rocks that were deposited between about 435 and 445 million years ago. World geography was quite different then. North America straddled the equator and Ohio was located south of the equator. The Ohio River did not exist. From a geological standpoint, the Ohio River is quite young. It was formed on a piecemeal basis beginning between 2.5 and 3 million years ago from north-flowing rivers dammed by the early ice ages.
In late May, 2009, seventy paleontologists took a break from a conference at the University of Cincinnati and drove over Ordovician bedrock to visit the Creation Museum. I’m sure that they were interested in seeing not only the displays at the museum, but also the living fossils of a species that was thought to have become extinct at the time of the European Enlightenment--the irrational, superstitious, religious believers for whom modern science means nothing. Those believers insist that the earth is 6000 years old. They believe this despite the fact that everybody knows that even Dick Clark is more than 6000 years old.
One display at the museum shows two prehistoric children playing while dinosaurs, which became extinct 63 million years before the human species developed, cavort nearby. The scientists visiting the museum were astonished. "I'm speechless," said Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale; "It's rather scary.” Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology, and evolution at University of California, Berkeley, said: “It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?” Lisa Park, a University of Akron professor of paleontology, who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, called it "bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me."
Leaving aside the geological evidence, it doesn’t seem likely that the earth began 6000 years ago. There was already a flourishing civilization in Egypt over 6000 years ago. British archaeologists have found 30 sites rich in art chiseled into rocks up to 6,000 years ago in the desert east of the Nile. The rock drawings show cattle, boats, ostriches, giraffes, hippos and the men and women who lived in the area in 4,000 BC, long before the first pharaohs or the first pyramids.
“Lucy” was the name given to an early ancestor of the human species discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia. Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species “Australopithecus Afarensis.” There have been hundreds of discoveries of pre-human fossils going back millions of years.
Fossils of the now extinct species of human called Neanderthals have been found in various places in Europe and the Middle East. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. Fossils of our ancestors, Cro-Magnon men, date back 40,000 years. Archeologists in Oregon have located an ancient trash dump and latrine which was found to contain human DNA linked directly to modern-day Native Americans with Asian roots. The materials found were radiocarbon dated to 14,300 years ago. It is believed that the ancestors of Native Americans came over the land bridge to Alaska around 20,000 years ago. People who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old don’t want to hear about science or truth. They want to live in their own world of nescience.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
ARE THE REPUBLICANS GUILTY OF TREASON
What is treason? The dictionary says that it is “Violation of allegiance toward one's country.” To me, this would include aiding in the economic destruction of one’s country and blocking efforts to make one’s country prosperous and safe. Why would anyone engage in such treasonous actions? Perhaps in order to replace those in power and take-over the government. This, I contend, is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do.
You would think that such treasonous actions would be a thing of the past. Control of the government no longer includes attainment of great wealth, castles, and lands. But it does include the acquisition of great power, and this is probably what the Republicans want. They have captured the House of Representatives and now they want to control the Senate and the Presidency. They believe that in order to do this they need to oppose every effort of President Obama and the Democrats to improve the nation’s economy and security.
It may sound harsh to call this kind of Republican political behavior treason, but the effect of their actions could be the continuation of economic stagnation and unemployment, damage to our relationship with Russia, weakening of our national security, and decrease in American prestige abroad. The Republican’s idea, as recently espoused by Senator Mitch McConnell, is to do everything possible to defeat President Obama in the next election. This means that even if Americans have to suffer more unemployment and poor economy, it is worth it to win the presidency. McConnell knows that President Obama will have a much harder time getting reelected if the economy remains lethargic.
You can expect that the Republicans in Congress will oppose and try to block any effort to give further stimulus to the economy. Every economist knows that extending unemployment insurance not only provides desperately needed relief to people out of work but also helps the economy because of the tendency of such people to spend unemployment benefits right away. Every economist knows that providing more stimulus to rebuild American’s infrastructure will improve the economy by creating jobs and enhancing interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Republicans have already blocked the building of a new rail system in Ohio and a new Hudson River tunnel in New Jersey.
The Republicans in the Senate are, apparently, filibustering a bill that would provide health care and economic compensation for tens of thousands of citizens suffering severe effects from the cleanup of the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center. Police, firefighters and citizen volunteers suffered various illnesses after their labors amid the toxic fumes and clouds at ground zero. They have not received compensation or health care because they were not part of the original lawsuits that were settled. So far, only one Republican Senator appears willing to support the bill. That is not politics, that is cruelty.
There are certain things that can be done to lower the federal deficit, some of them very hard. But you can be sure that Republicans will not agree to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire while keeping the tax cuts for the middle class. Despite the fact that economists have warned about the extreme danger of allowing our huge deficits to continue, it is questionable whether the Republicans will be willing to compromise on any genuine deficit-cutting programs. If the Republicans in Congress refuse to agree to increase the spending limit next year the nation could be faced with a critical economic crisis.
In a recent column in The New York Times, Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman, wrote that the Republicans have joined forces with Germany and China in an effort to stop the Federal Reserve from buying governmental bonds and thereby helping American manufacturers compete abroad. The Fed’s activity will lower the dollar, increase exports, narrow the trade deficit, and help fight unemployment. Krugman asks, “So what’s really motivating the GOP attack on the Fed?” He cited the remarks of budget expert, Stan Collender, saying that: “‘With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,’ they would be ‘opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.’ In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.”
God forbid that the Democratic President and the Democrats in Congress are able to increase exports and employment! God forbid that the economy of America improves greatly before the next presidential election! God forbid that President Obama gets credit for securing an arms limitation treaty with Russia!
It appears that the Republicans want not only for the economy to remain stagnant, but for it to go into a double-dip recession with more millions out-of-work. They believe, perhaps correctly, that such economic crisis will lead to Republican recapture of the White House and the Senate. They are oblivious to the damage that will be done to the country and to millions of hard-working Americans. It is not that they want power in order to improve things. They have no program to bring-on an economic miracle. They have no plans to vastly reduce unemployment. They have no program to improve the security of America and our relations with Russia. They want power for the sake of power. That is often the reason that traitors want power.
You would think that such treasonous actions would be a thing of the past. Control of the government no longer includes attainment of great wealth, castles, and lands. But it does include the acquisition of great power, and this is probably what the Republicans want. They have captured the House of Representatives and now they want to control the Senate and the Presidency. They believe that in order to do this they need to oppose every effort of President Obama and the Democrats to improve the nation’s economy and security.
It may sound harsh to call this kind of Republican political behavior treason, but the effect of their actions could be the continuation of economic stagnation and unemployment, damage to our relationship with Russia, weakening of our national security, and decrease in American prestige abroad. The Republican’s idea, as recently espoused by Senator Mitch McConnell, is to do everything possible to defeat President Obama in the next election. This means that even if Americans have to suffer more unemployment and poor economy, it is worth it to win the presidency. McConnell knows that President Obama will have a much harder time getting reelected if the economy remains lethargic.
You can expect that the Republicans in Congress will oppose and try to block any effort to give further stimulus to the economy. Every economist knows that extending unemployment insurance not only provides desperately needed relief to people out of work but also helps the economy because of the tendency of such people to spend unemployment benefits right away. Every economist knows that providing more stimulus to rebuild American’s infrastructure will improve the economy by creating jobs and enhancing interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Republicans have already blocked the building of a new rail system in Ohio and a new Hudson River tunnel in New Jersey.
The Republicans in the Senate are, apparently, filibustering a bill that would provide health care and economic compensation for tens of thousands of citizens suffering severe effects from the cleanup of the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center. Police, firefighters and citizen volunteers suffered various illnesses after their labors amid the toxic fumes and clouds at ground zero. They have not received compensation or health care because they were not part of the original lawsuits that were settled. So far, only one Republican Senator appears willing to support the bill. That is not politics, that is cruelty.
There are certain things that can be done to lower the federal deficit, some of them very hard. But you can be sure that Republicans will not agree to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire while keeping the tax cuts for the middle class. Despite the fact that economists have warned about the extreme danger of allowing our huge deficits to continue, it is questionable whether the Republicans will be willing to compromise on any genuine deficit-cutting programs. If the Republicans in Congress refuse to agree to increase the spending limit next year the nation could be faced with a critical economic crisis.
In a recent column in The New York Times, Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman, wrote that the Republicans have joined forces with Germany and China in an effort to stop the Federal Reserve from buying governmental bonds and thereby helping American manufacturers compete abroad. The Fed’s activity will lower the dollar, increase exports, narrow the trade deficit, and help fight unemployment. Krugman asks, “So what’s really motivating the GOP attack on the Fed?” He cited the remarks of budget expert, Stan Collender, saying that: “‘With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,’ they would be ‘opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.’ In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.”
God forbid that the Democratic President and the Democrats in Congress are able to increase exports and employment! God forbid that the economy of America improves greatly before the next presidential election! God forbid that President Obama gets credit for securing an arms limitation treaty with Russia!
It appears that the Republicans want not only for the economy to remain stagnant, but for it to go into a double-dip recession with more millions out-of-work. They believe, perhaps correctly, that such economic crisis will lead to Republican recapture of the White House and the Senate. They are oblivious to the damage that will be done to the country and to millions of hard-working Americans. It is not that they want power in order to improve things. They have no program to bring-on an economic miracle. They have no plans to vastly reduce unemployment. They have no program to improve the security of America and our relations with Russia. They want power for the sake of power. That is often the reason that traitors want power.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Should The Democrats Rethink Their Strategy
If the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress feel that recent losses in the House of Representatives and in various state governorships and legislatures require them to rethink their strategy and move more toward the middle, they will be giving the Republicans and Conservatives a victory that they never earned at the polls. After all, the President is still a liberal Democrat. The Democrats are still in charge of the U.S. Senate. There are still plenty of Democratic governors and state legislators. In my opinion as a liberal Democrat, the Democrats should move more to the left, and leave the middle for the Republicans.
The reason why the Republicans won this year was not because the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. The Republicans won because of “the economy stupid.” The mass of independent voters, and many Democrats and Republicans, always vote their pocket-books. They do not care about, or know very much about, the big issues. They look at what is happening in the economy and how it is affecting or likely to affect their personal finances. They opposed the stimulus because they resented money going to big banks and stockbrokerages. They did not realize that much of the stimulus money was designed to go to jobs for lower and middle income Americans. They resented the health care reform bill because they believed that it would help only poor people and that it would raise taxes. They didn’t realize that it would benefit all people and that only the wealthy people would pay higher taxes. They also did not realize that the bill would actually lower the deficit.
Thus, it was not their political philosophy that hurt the Democrats. It was the continuation of a sluggish economy and unemployment from a recession started under a Republican administration and caused by Republicans’ anti-regulation policies.
So what should the President Obama and the Democrats do now? Should they retain the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy as well as for the middle-class? Should they abandon all hope of getting legislation to stop global warming? Should they give-up on trying to have a public option attached to the health care legislation? Should they forget about trying to strengthen the Wall Street reforms? I say that, if anything, they should increase their efforts to pass these things and other liberal legislation. The last thing they should do is kowtow to the Conservatives and become more conservative themselves. By moving to the right the Democrats will have truly lost the election and given-in to the Republicans.
It is particularly important that President Obama not believe that the election was a referendum on his popularity. It was a referendum on the economy, which still suffers from high unemployment. Moreover, a large percentage of the people who voted Republican this time voted against Obama when he ran for president. President Obama won the White House by a 52 to 46 percent margin. That means that 46 percent of the electorate was already prepared to vote Republican two years later. All it took was a small shift of independent voters to insure a Republican victory in the midterm elections. There can be no doubt that those independents did so in the hope that it would improve their finances.
Conservatives will point to Bill Clinton who appeared to become more conservative after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm election. But Clinton did not become more conservative. Rather, he recognized the necessity of working with a Republican congress in order to get anything done. In that sense, President Obama has it better than Clinton did. At least he has a Democratic Senate to work with. As President Obama has said, he will have to compromise with the Republicans in the House in order to get legislation, but he will not have to go as far as Clinton did. In addition, the Republicans will have to compromise with the President and the Democrats in the Senate if they want to pass any legislation. Otherwise they will revert to the kind of obstructionist party they were before the election.
I hope that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not take their eyes off the ball. I hope that they will not surrender their values as a result of this midterm election.
The reason why the Republicans won this year was not because the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. The Republicans won because of “the economy stupid.” The mass of independent voters, and many Democrats and Republicans, always vote their pocket-books. They do not care about, or know very much about, the big issues. They look at what is happening in the economy and how it is affecting or likely to affect their personal finances. They opposed the stimulus because they resented money going to big banks and stockbrokerages. They did not realize that much of the stimulus money was designed to go to jobs for lower and middle income Americans. They resented the health care reform bill because they believed that it would help only poor people and that it would raise taxes. They didn’t realize that it would benefit all people and that only the wealthy people would pay higher taxes. They also did not realize that the bill would actually lower the deficit.
Thus, it was not their political philosophy that hurt the Democrats. It was the continuation of a sluggish economy and unemployment from a recession started under a Republican administration and caused by Republicans’ anti-regulation policies.
So what should the President Obama and the Democrats do now? Should they retain the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy as well as for the middle-class? Should they abandon all hope of getting legislation to stop global warming? Should they give-up on trying to have a public option attached to the health care legislation? Should they forget about trying to strengthen the Wall Street reforms? I say that, if anything, they should increase their efforts to pass these things and other liberal legislation. The last thing they should do is kowtow to the Conservatives and become more conservative themselves. By moving to the right the Democrats will have truly lost the election and given-in to the Republicans.
It is particularly important that President Obama not believe that the election was a referendum on his popularity. It was a referendum on the economy, which still suffers from high unemployment. Moreover, a large percentage of the people who voted Republican this time voted against Obama when he ran for president. President Obama won the White House by a 52 to 46 percent margin. That means that 46 percent of the electorate was already prepared to vote Republican two years later. All it took was a small shift of independent voters to insure a Republican victory in the midterm elections. There can be no doubt that those independents did so in the hope that it would improve their finances.
Conservatives will point to Bill Clinton who appeared to become more conservative after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm election. But Clinton did not become more conservative. Rather, he recognized the necessity of working with a Republican congress in order to get anything done. In that sense, President Obama has it better than Clinton did. At least he has a Democratic Senate to work with. As President Obama has said, he will have to compromise with the Republicans in the House in order to get legislation, but he will not have to go as far as Clinton did. In addition, the Republicans will have to compromise with the President and the Democrats in the Senate if they want to pass any legislation. Otherwise they will revert to the kind of obstructionist party they were before the election.
I hope that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not take their eyes off the ball. I hope that they will not surrender their values as a result of this midterm election.
Friday, October 29, 2010
BART EHRMAN
Anyone who has read my Blog will be aware of the fact that one of my primary areas of interest is the relationship between belief in God and the presence of evil and suffering in the world. For anyone who shares this interest I would like to recommend a book by Bart Ehrman which I have just finished reading entitled: God’s Problem. In this book, Ehrman, who is a professor at the University of North Carolina, discusses the question of whether it is possible to believe in God and still be aware of the massive amount of suffering that goes on in the world.
Professor Ehrman considers all of the explanations for suffering given by apologists, philosophers, and by prophets in the Judeo/Christian Bible, and one-by-one he dismisses each of them. He shows that the explanation of suffering based on free will simply does not give any reason to believe in God. He demonstrates that the idea that suffering is redemptive cannot be reconciled with a loving God. He rejects the idea that suffering is a test of faith or the idea that suffering is caused by forces of the devil. He does not accept the idea that suffering is caused by God, but that its reason is a mystery that will be revealed and explained after we die. This is the conclusion reached by the biblical author of the Book of Job.
The most powerful section of the book is near the end where Ehrman discusses the part of the book called “The Rebellion” in "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoevsky. There, the brother Ivan, who still believes in God, says that even if, after we die, there is a full explanation of the reason why God allowed or perpetrated the suffering in the world, he, Ivan, will never accept the explanation. Ivan points to the acts by Turkish soldiers, tossing babies up in the air before their mothers and impaling the babies on their bayonets. He also tells the true story of parents who punished their little daughter for wetting the bed by smearing her face with excrement and locking her outside in the freezing-cold outhouse overnight. Of course the child died.
I found myself totally in agreement with the ideas of Professor Ehrman. Even if I could believe in God, which I cannot, I could never accept any explanation he might give for the horrors of the world. Even if the explanation was free will, I could never accept any excuse for the suffering of children. What does free will have to do with the suffering caused by tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, birth defects, and hundreds of other causes? If God is perfectly loving and omnipotent, how could he allow things like the holocaust, other genocides, plagues, war, mass murder, and suicides? The only explanation is that there is no such thing as God.
But Ehrman gave me something to latch onto besides the sad absence of God. He somehow finds a redemptive resolution of suffering in, of all places, the Bible. He says: “I have to admit that at the end of the day, I do have a biblical view of suffering. As it turns out, it is the view put forth in the book of Ecclesiastes. There is a lot that we can’t know about this world. A lot of this world doesn’t make sense. Sometimes there is no justice. Things don’t go as planned or as they should. A lot of bad things happen. But life also brings good things. The solution to life is to enjoy it while we can, because it is fleeting. This world, and everything in it, is temporary, transient, and soon to be over. We won’t live forever—in fact we won’t live long. And so we should enjoy life to the fullest, as much as we can, as long as we can. That’s what the author of Ecclesiastes thinks, and I agree.”
Ehrman says that enjoying life means not just relaxing, going to the theater and the symphony, eating great food, drinking the best wine, dancing all night, (although we should do all of those things), but it also means working to alleviate the suffering and bringing hope to a world devoid of hope. We can enjoy life and still try to live upright, decent, helpful lives in which we refuse to accept the explanation that life is hopeless and miserable. We can be good, kind, generous, and loving. We may not cure the horrors or ills of life, we may not be able to save mankind, but we can be kind to those around us and show love for our fellow man. In the end, that is the real message of Jesus.
Professor Ehrman considers all of the explanations for suffering given by apologists, philosophers, and by prophets in the Judeo/Christian Bible, and one-by-one he dismisses each of them. He shows that the explanation of suffering based on free will simply does not give any reason to believe in God. He demonstrates that the idea that suffering is redemptive cannot be reconciled with a loving God. He rejects the idea that suffering is a test of faith or the idea that suffering is caused by forces of the devil. He does not accept the idea that suffering is caused by God, but that its reason is a mystery that will be revealed and explained after we die. This is the conclusion reached by the biblical author of the Book of Job.
The most powerful section of the book is near the end where Ehrman discusses the part of the book called “The Rebellion” in "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoevsky. There, the brother Ivan, who still believes in God, says that even if, after we die, there is a full explanation of the reason why God allowed or perpetrated the suffering in the world, he, Ivan, will never accept the explanation. Ivan points to the acts by Turkish soldiers, tossing babies up in the air before their mothers and impaling the babies on their bayonets. He also tells the true story of parents who punished their little daughter for wetting the bed by smearing her face with excrement and locking her outside in the freezing-cold outhouse overnight. Of course the child died.
I found myself totally in agreement with the ideas of Professor Ehrman. Even if I could believe in God, which I cannot, I could never accept any explanation he might give for the horrors of the world. Even if the explanation was free will, I could never accept any excuse for the suffering of children. What does free will have to do with the suffering caused by tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, birth defects, and hundreds of other causes? If God is perfectly loving and omnipotent, how could he allow things like the holocaust, other genocides, plagues, war, mass murder, and suicides? The only explanation is that there is no such thing as God.
But Ehrman gave me something to latch onto besides the sad absence of God. He somehow finds a redemptive resolution of suffering in, of all places, the Bible. He says: “I have to admit that at the end of the day, I do have a biblical view of suffering. As it turns out, it is the view put forth in the book of Ecclesiastes. There is a lot that we can’t know about this world. A lot of this world doesn’t make sense. Sometimes there is no justice. Things don’t go as planned or as they should. A lot of bad things happen. But life also brings good things. The solution to life is to enjoy it while we can, because it is fleeting. This world, and everything in it, is temporary, transient, and soon to be over. We won’t live forever—in fact we won’t live long. And so we should enjoy life to the fullest, as much as we can, as long as we can. That’s what the author of Ecclesiastes thinks, and I agree.”
Ehrman says that enjoying life means not just relaxing, going to the theater and the symphony, eating great food, drinking the best wine, dancing all night, (although we should do all of those things), but it also means working to alleviate the suffering and bringing hope to a world devoid of hope. We can enjoy life and still try to live upright, decent, helpful lives in which we refuse to accept the explanation that life is hopeless and miserable. We can be good, kind, generous, and loving. We may not cure the horrors or ills of life, we may not be able to save mankind, but we can be kind to those around us and show love for our fellow man. In the end, that is the real message of Jesus.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Should the Tax Cuts Be Allowed to Expire
At the start of his presidency, President George W. Bush believed that it was necessary to cut taxes in order to spur the economy. During his first term (2001–2004), he obtained Congressional approval for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit, and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty.” The tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. The question is whether the cuts should be extended or allowed to expire.
So far, these tax cuts have cost the government $2.48 trillion. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that resulted directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
When Bush took office in 2001, there was no deficit. He inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. As a result of the tax cuts and Bush’s continued spending, including two wars and expansion of the Medicare drug benefit, the deficit at the end of Bush’s term for fiscal year 2009 was in excess of $1.2 trillion. Thus, President Obama inherited most of the deficit for which he is now being criticized.
The dispute between conservatives and liberals in Congress over whether to allow the tax cuts to expire or to extend them, and even make them permanent, reflects deep philosophical differences between the parties. Republicans hate budget deficits and loudly call for reduction of spending, but despite the fact that the tax cuts caused huge deficits, they are united in their demand that the tax cuts be extended. Democrats are willing to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but wish to allow the tax cuts for people making over $200,000 per year to expire. Republicans claim that this would be disastrous at a time of economic difficulty, but leading economists say that expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would have no adverse effect on the economy. Remember, these taxpayers are wealthy people! They have an upscale standard of living. Repeal of the tax cuts will not make them poor. It would not cut down on their purchases, because they do not use all of their income to purchase things. It is well known that the very rich use only a small portion of their income to make purchases. They put the rest of their income in savings. Allowing the tax cuts to expire would result in only a small decrease in their savings.
Economists have pointed-out that the “Program for America” pushed by Republican leaders would be impossible to implement. Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman explains that if we were to follow the Republicans program, keep the tax cuts, keep funding the wars, keep Social Security and Medicare, but cut enough spending to balance the budget, the remainder of federal government would disappear. There would be no federal departments, no federal agencies, no federal programs of any kind—nothing. The Republican program would be impossible to implement.
When the Obama Administration was faced with the recession it was necessary, in order to avoid a horrendous depression, to intervene and spend government money to stimulate the economy. All of the leading economists supported the stimulus, and all of them now know that it worked. Robert J. Samuelson reported in Newsweek that when Obama took office in early 2009, the economy and financial markets were in virtual free-fall. By summer they were steady. Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics estimate that without the government’s aggressive response, gross domestic product would have dropped 12 percent instead of 4 percent, and 16.6 percent of jobs would have been lost instead of 8.4 percent.
Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot eliminate deficits and still maintain gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy. They cannot have a stimulated economy and still avoid government stimulus. The truth is that the Republicans are not worried about the economy. They are worried about their wealthy contributors. The tax cuts for the middle class should be extended, but the tax cuts for those fat cats should be allowed to expire.
So far, these tax cuts have cost the government $2.48 trillion. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that resulted directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
When Bush took office in 2001, there was no deficit. He inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. As a result of the tax cuts and Bush’s continued spending, including two wars and expansion of the Medicare drug benefit, the deficit at the end of Bush’s term for fiscal year 2009 was in excess of $1.2 trillion. Thus, President Obama inherited most of the deficit for which he is now being criticized.
The dispute between conservatives and liberals in Congress over whether to allow the tax cuts to expire or to extend them, and even make them permanent, reflects deep philosophical differences between the parties. Republicans hate budget deficits and loudly call for reduction of spending, but despite the fact that the tax cuts caused huge deficits, they are united in their demand that the tax cuts be extended. Democrats are willing to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but wish to allow the tax cuts for people making over $200,000 per year to expire. Republicans claim that this would be disastrous at a time of economic difficulty, but leading economists say that expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would have no adverse effect on the economy. Remember, these taxpayers are wealthy people! They have an upscale standard of living. Repeal of the tax cuts will not make them poor. It would not cut down on their purchases, because they do not use all of their income to purchase things. It is well known that the very rich use only a small portion of their income to make purchases. They put the rest of their income in savings. Allowing the tax cuts to expire would result in only a small decrease in their savings.
Economists have pointed-out that the “Program for America” pushed by Republican leaders would be impossible to implement. Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman explains that if we were to follow the Republicans program, keep the tax cuts, keep funding the wars, keep Social Security and Medicare, but cut enough spending to balance the budget, the remainder of federal government would disappear. There would be no federal departments, no federal agencies, no federal programs of any kind—nothing. The Republican program would be impossible to implement.
When the Obama Administration was faced with the recession it was necessary, in order to avoid a horrendous depression, to intervene and spend government money to stimulate the economy. All of the leading economists supported the stimulus, and all of them now know that it worked. Robert J. Samuelson reported in Newsweek that when Obama took office in early 2009, the economy and financial markets were in virtual free-fall. By summer they were steady. Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics estimate that without the government’s aggressive response, gross domestic product would have dropped 12 percent instead of 4 percent, and 16.6 percent of jobs would have been lost instead of 8.4 percent.
Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot eliminate deficits and still maintain gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy. They cannot have a stimulated economy and still avoid government stimulus. The truth is that the Republicans are not worried about the economy. They are worried about their wealthy contributors. The tax cuts for the middle class should be extended, but the tax cuts for those fat cats should be allowed to expire.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Why Do People Believe In God
Why do people believe in God despite the overwhelming lack of evidence for his existence? Why do people go on praying to God despite the fact that there is no evidence that prayers are answered? How can people continue to believe in the various religious denominations, sects, and cults when science has so thoroughly destroyed many of their central beliefs? People continue to flock to churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques despite the many fakes, scams, frauds, absurdities, and even crimes of their denominations’ and leaders.
Perhaps the answer is our fear of death. Religion may not have arisen solely because of the fear of death, but if you ask people today, they will tell you that there has to be some continuing life after death. Religion provides assurance that there is such life.
Death is part of nature. Every living thing dies. All humans die. No matter how long science is able to extend the length of a human life, we will all die. It is inherent in all living things. Why do we fear death? Why is death the most terrible part of life? Why have we surrounded death with such enormous horror and grief? You would think that such a natural, universal event would be stoically accepted by us as inevitable. But it isn’t.
We fear death because fear is part of our survival as a species. Any species that does not develop some type of fear of death is likely to become extinct. Our young species has managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years in part because of our fear of death. Like other genetically successful species, we have developed evolutionary methods of avoiding death, at least until we have reproduced and spread our genes. Whether we will be as successful a species as the long-lived turtles, sharks, and alligators, remains to be seen.
I believe that one of the many strategies the human race uses to deal with its fear of death is the creation of imaginary beings called “gods.” By creating gods, humans seek to avoid the despair that might accompany a full understanding of their fate. The invention of gods is a tranquilizer that helps man deal with the fact that when we die, we die to eternal oblivion.
Most people realize that the human body does not survive death. What they hope for is the survival of human consciousness and memory. The idea is that our spirit or “soul” survives in an afterlife. It would make little difference if the spirit or soul survived but did not remember living on earth. Most people wish for the survival of our memory. In heaven we would know who we are and remember our lives and family on earth. For most people this includes seeing and getting back together with our loved ones (although Jesus said that in the resurrection there was no marriage, Matt. 22:23-30). For most, the afterlife is an idealized version of life on earth. There is no pain, no misery, no stress, no sin, no evil, only unlimited joy. For Catholics it is the “beatific vision.” For Moslems it is “Paradise,” an eternal feast in a green garden with beautiful virgins serving the faithful. For most people, people in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth, and many believe that the dead can intervene in earthly events.
There is something contradictory about the idea that our consciousness survives our deaths. Death is, ipso facto, the death of consciousness. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and if the brain is dead it does not function. We want to believe that somehow through the hand of God, our consciousness, our brain, goes on working after death even though for earthly purposes it is finished. We want to believe that the mind is not really part of the body, but rather, a spiritual function. Science knows that the mind is the brain and the nervous system, a purely physical phenomenon, and like the rest of the body, it dies.
Another reason people today seem to want to believe in religion is that religion gives an answer to the question of evil. Religion tells people that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. People fear that without religion, there is no reason for morality, no punishment for evil, no reward for good. People say that without God there is no meaning and purpose in life.
We live in a violent world, full of tragedy and sorrow. Our invention of a God helps us to deal with life. Without God, we find no transcendental reason to be good rather than evil. Without God, life seems meaningless. We see evildoers prospering, while good people suffer. We want an explanation. We desperately need to believe that there is a supreme being who hands down moral laws, rewards goodness, and punishes evil.
When believers argue that without God there is no meaning and no purpose in life they are making a meaningless argument. Meaning and purpose are not things that exist as separate transcendental entities in the universe. They are concepts invented by human beings to explain certain things. Meaning and purpose exist only in the human mind. If a thing has meaning, it has meaning only to the mind of a person. It is the sense, significance, import, intent, or end of something as construed by the mind. The purpose of something is the goal or object for which something exists or is done by a human being. The existence or nonexistence of God has nothing to do with meaning or purpose. Even if God existed, the concepts of meaning and purpose would still be functions of the human mind and not something created by God.
There is something magnetic about great art. People are powerfully attracted to and inspired by it. When we view a great painting or sculpture, we are able to lose ourselves in it. We forget it is a piece of canvass or a chunk of rock, and see it instead as a representation of something. It is capable of moving us deeply. The same is true of great music. While we listen to it, we do not think of it as a series of sound waves varying in length. We are transported, lifted out of the moment, moved to wonderful feelings and emotions. When we read a novel, we forget that it is just a story, and get caught-up in its plot.
In the theater and motion pictures we are captivated by the story. We forget that the characters are only actors mouthing the lines written for them. We suspend our disbelief. We let our thoughts and emotions go with the story as if it were really happening. Our art, as a reflection of ourselves, is something we not only create, but something which--if it is even halfway good--can move us to suspend our knowledge of reality. It captures and enthralls us.
This can all be explained by the working of the brain. I believe that each person in his or her innermost mind recognizes that there is no God. We must deal with the absence of God and the powerful desire that he be present. To deal with this we have created God--the pictures, stories, music, theology, ritual, liturgy, mystery--everything. It was necessary to do this to explain what we did not know, to help us deal with death, and to explain our awe, fascination, and need for meaning. We objectified our feeling of the numinous. Once we created God, as with all of our artistic creations, we were captured by him. God became not just a creation, a story, a picture, but a reality--a creator, a God who is wholly other.
But somewhere deep in the mind of every halfway intelligent person is the realization that there is no such thing as God. He does not exist. He is a figment of the human imagination. That is a melancholy thought. But it is the truth.
Perhaps the answer is our fear of death. Religion may not have arisen solely because of the fear of death, but if you ask people today, they will tell you that there has to be some continuing life after death. Religion provides assurance that there is such life.
Death is part of nature. Every living thing dies. All humans die. No matter how long science is able to extend the length of a human life, we will all die. It is inherent in all living things. Why do we fear death? Why is death the most terrible part of life? Why have we surrounded death with such enormous horror and grief? You would think that such a natural, universal event would be stoically accepted by us as inevitable. But it isn’t.
We fear death because fear is part of our survival as a species. Any species that does not develop some type of fear of death is likely to become extinct. Our young species has managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years in part because of our fear of death. Like other genetically successful species, we have developed evolutionary methods of avoiding death, at least until we have reproduced and spread our genes. Whether we will be as successful a species as the long-lived turtles, sharks, and alligators, remains to be seen.
I believe that one of the many strategies the human race uses to deal with its fear of death is the creation of imaginary beings called “gods.” By creating gods, humans seek to avoid the despair that might accompany a full understanding of their fate. The invention of gods is a tranquilizer that helps man deal with the fact that when we die, we die to eternal oblivion.
Most people realize that the human body does not survive death. What they hope for is the survival of human consciousness and memory. The idea is that our spirit or “soul” survives in an afterlife. It would make little difference if the spirit or soul survived but did not remember living on earth. Most people wish for the survival of our memory. In heaven we would know who we are and remember our lives and family on earth. For most people this includes seeing and getting back together with our loved ones (although Jesus said that in the resurrection there was no marriage, Matt. 22:23-30). For most, the afterlife is an idealized version of life on earth. There is no pain, no misery, no stress, no sin, no evil, only unlimited joy. For Catholics it is the “beatific vision.” For Moslems it is “Paradise,” an eternal feast in a green garden with beautiful virgins serving the faithful. For most people, people in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth, and many believe that the dead can intervene in earthly events.
There is something contradictory about the idea that our consciousness survives our deaths. Death is, ipso facto, the death of consciousness. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and if the brain is dead it does not function. We want to believe that somehow through the hand of God, our consciousness, our brain, goes on working after death even though for earthly purposes it is finished. We want to believe that the mind is not really part of the body, but rather, a spiritual function. Science knows that the mind is the brain and the nervous system, a purely physical phenomenon, and like the rest of the body, it dies.
Another reason people today seem to want to believe in religion is that religion gives an answer to the question of evil. Religion tells people that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. People fear that without religion, there is no reason for morality, no punishment for evil, no reward for good. People say that without God there is no meaning and purpose in life.
We live in a violent world, full of tragedy and sorrow. Our invention of a God helps us to deal with life. Without God, we find no transcendental reason to be good rather than evil. Without God, life seems meaningless. We see evildoers prospering, while good people suffer. We want an explanation. We desperately need to believe that there is a supreme being who hands down moral laws, rewards goodness, and punishes evil.
When believers argue that without God there is no meaning and no purpose in life they are making a meaningless argument. Meaning and purpose are not things that exist as separate transcendental entities in the universe. They are concepts invented by human beings to explain certain things. Meaning and purpose exist only in the human mind. If a thing has meaning, it has meaning only to the mind of a person. It is the sense, significance, import, intent, or end of something as construed by the mind. The purpose of something is the goal or object for which something exists or is done by a human being. The existence or nonexistence of God has nothing to do with meaning or purpose. Even if God existed, the concepts of meaning and purpose would still be functions of the human mind and not something created by God.
There is something magnetic about great art. People are powerfully attracted to and inspired by it. When we view a great painting or sculpture, we are able to lose ourselves in it. We forget it is a piece of canvass or a chunk of rock, and see it instead as a representation of something. It is capable of moving us deeply. The same is true of great music. While we listen to it, we do not think of it as a series of sound waves varying in length. We are transported, lifted out of the moment, moved to wonderful feelings and emotions. When we read a novel, we forget that it is just a story, and get caught-up in its plot.
In the theater and motion pictures we are captivated by the story. We forget that the characters are only actors mouthing the lines written for them. We suspend our disbelief. We let our thoughts and emotions go with the story as if it were really happening. Our art, as a reflection of ourselves, is something we not only create, but something which--if it is even halfway good--can move us to suspend our knowledge of reality. It captures and enthralls us.
This can all be explained by the working of the brain. I believe that each person in his or her innermost mind recognizes that there is no God. We must deal with the absence of God and the powerful desire that he be present. To deal with this we have created God--the pictures, stories, music, theology, ritual, liturgy, mystery--everything. It was necessary to do this to explain what we did not know, to help us deal with death, and to explain our awe, fascination, and need for meaning. We objectified our feeling of the numinous. Once we created God, as with all of our artistic creations, we were captured by him. God became not just a creation, a story, a picture, but a reality--a creator, a God who is wholly other.
But somewhere deep in the mind of every halfway intelligent person is the realization that there is no such thing as God. He does not exist. He is a figment of the human imagination. That is a melancholy thought. But it is the truth.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Is Life Really Beautiful?
The primary reason for the existence of religion is to relieve people of fear. Marx called religion the “Opiate of the Masses.” This was a perfect explanation of the religious impulse. We live in a world filled with pain, sorrow, depression, and horror, but the religions tell us that there is a God out there who loves us and loves the world. This God will take care of us and, after death, will provide us with a paradise of joy and happiness.
I was speaking to someone and I proposed that if there really was a God, we should not worship or love or adore him, but rather, we should hate him. The person responded that we should worship him because “life is beautiful.” I replied that although life has moments of beauty and happiness, there is far too much sorrow and unhappiness to say that life is beautiful.
Consider the following: The great majority of people in the world live in abject poverty. Most of those people suffer from hunger, disease, famine, tsunamis, cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues, infestations, and war. When one looks at the continents of Africa, Asia, and South America, one wonders how there could be a loving God looking over those people. Hundreds of millions of the people on those continents are subjected to widespread diseases such as cholera, malaria, sleeping sickness, AIDS, Dengue Fever, and Yellow Fever. They have insufficient clothing, shelter ,and medical care. They are ruled-over by tyrants and dictators. Hundreds of millions of women throughout the world are treated as chattels without civil rights. They are beaten, raped, stoned, and subject to genital castration designed to eradicate their sexual pleasure. It is hard to imagine that such people are happy.
What about the lucky people in America and the more affluent countries of Europe? One would think that they have many reasons to thank God. But we need to ask, are the lives of Americans so blessed and happy? Let’s start with health. Practically everybody in America has somebody in their family suffering from some serious illness. Millions of Americans have children with serious congenital diseases and infirmities such as autism, blindness, deafness, physical deformity, Down Syndrome, mental retardation, mental illnesses, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, cancer, and hundreds of other less common syndromes and disorders. The parents of such children often live lives of great sorrow.
Millions of adult Americans also suffer from terrible diseases. Heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, liver disease, Emphysema, Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), AIDS, Crohn’s Disease, chronic pain, and hundreds of other conditions beset the happiness of their lives. Millions of Americans suffer from mental problems, depression, anxiety, fatigue, lonliness, phobias, panic attacks, disabling shyness, and stress throughout their lives. Millions of Americans suffer from the effects of terrible automobile accidents and other injuries. They go through life as cripples with disabled or missing limbs, internal organs, and other essential parts of their bodies, or suffering from terrible pain.
As people get older, they greet a host of problems afflicting older Americans such as strokes, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, hearing and seeing defects, prostate problems, osteoporosis, erectile dysfunction, sleep disorders, Alzheimer’s and memory loss, and hundreds of other medical and psychological problems that impair their happiness. As people age their bodies breaks-down, their skin wrinkles, their hair disappears or turns white, their energy fails, and they lose their sexual ability and attraction.
Millions of Americans are addicted to alcohol, pain medication, and illegal drugs. Almost all of them are living in terrible misery, unable to shake the imprisonment of their addictions. There are millions of homeless people living on the streets, in tents, under bridges, and in shelters. Millions of other Americans are addicted to behavior patterns such as gambling addiction, fetishism, sexual addiction, frigidity, obsessive-compulsive behavior, dependency, and other forms of addiction. There are millions of people with sexual deviations including the need to molest children or rape women. Millions of people engage in abusive behavior, physically beating or verbally berating their spouses, companions, and children. Millions of spouses, companions, and children are victims of such abuse. Such people cannot possibly be happy.
Millions of Americans live in poverty surrounded by a land of plenty. They eke-out a living in slums, tenements, housing projects, trailer parks, and rural shacks. They often go hungry in this land of plenty. Many go without decent clothing, shelter, ordinary medical care, and live in places without heat, cooling, electricity, telephone service, computers, sanitation, or even running water.
Millions of Americans are the victims of discrimination. People of all minorities suffer from bigotry. Millions of homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, and other trans-gender people are the objects of prejudice and condemnation by millions of other people.
Every day one reads in the paper about people who commit crimes. There are thousands of kinds of crimes committed every day by millions of people. It is difficult to guess what percent of the populace is dishonest, violent, dangerous, fraudulent, and deceitful, but judging from the constant news of crimes, schemes, scams, and corruptions, the number must run well into the tens of millions. There are millions of people engaged in serious and not-so-serious crime, including robbery, larceny, drug offenses, burglary, mugging, assault and battery, murder, and thousands of other kinds of crime. Millions of Americans are incarcerated in prisons and jails. There are millions of wives, children, parents, and other close relatives of prison inmates. These people must suffer having their loved ones in jail. There are millions of victims of crimes whose lives have been ruined by the crimes of others.
Millions of Americans are in unhappy marriages or relationships. Millions of Americans are suffering from the breakdown of their marriages or the breakup of relationships in which they were very much in love. Half of all marriages end in divorce. A majority of those who do not get divorced go on living in unhappy marriages. Millions of people are engaged in illicit sexual entanglements that cause them emotional pain and guilt. Millions of people are almost suicidal because of the infidelity of a spouse or loved one. Millions of people suffer from feelings of inferiority or lack of self-worth. Millions of people suffer from the feeling that they are too fat, too thin, or unattractive.
Millions of Americans hate their jobs or suffer under cruel, tyrannical, or sadistic bosses. There are millions of people with sour, nasty, cruel, vicious, malicious, and evil personalities who make it their business in life to damage, spoil, and injure the lives of other people. Millions of people live lives consumed with envy, jealousy, and hatred of others whom they perceive to be more fortunate than they.
Millions of families have children with serious behavior problems. Many of these children may grow up in middle class homes with respectable parents, yet the children are constantly in trouble with school, neighbors, the police, and others. Thousands of such children run away every year only to wind-up on the streets caught-up in drug addiction, prostitution, and crime.
For every Bernard Madoff carrying-out a giant stock swindle, there are thousands of businessmen, brokers, hedge fund managers, and others engaged in insider trading and other blatant violations of the rules of business law and ethics. Millions of Americans cheat others in smaller ways for smaller amounts of money. If one were able to calculate the amount of money embezzled from businesses, organizations, and charities each year it would probably be up in the billions if not trillions. I have known several embezzlers in my lifetime. I’m sure everybody has.
Although one would expect great probity from the wealthiest and most successful people, it is simply not there. Doctors routinely over-bill for services. Andy Rooney told a story about a doctor who came into his room while he was in the hospital for treatment. The doctor said hello and mentioned that he liked Rooney’s work. He then departed without examining or treating Rooney, and later billed Medicare for $240. I have heard many such stories. I have had personal experience with dishonest doctors. One doctor who came in and handed my wife a card while our son was being treated for a broken bone at the hospital, later billed for services even though he did not examine or treat my son at all. Doctors frequently bill for services never rendered. Medicare and Medicaid pay tens of billions for fraudulent claims by physicians who are wealthy by any standard.
Eventually, we die. Death is not a simple leaf dropping off a tree. Death is usually painful. Often, it is horrible. It is usually accompanied by the grief of loved ones.
Yes, life does have its moments of happiness and beauty. There are some wonderful things in life, and some people do live very happy, prosperous, safe, healthy lives. Those people can be thankful for all they have, but they probably represent a small fraction of the people on earth. If you stop and consider all of the unhappiness, pain, disease, grief, and guilt suffered by the vast majority of people in the world, it can hardly be said that life is beautiful.
While many people suffering from the terrible things listed here may not think life is bad, that is because of the human ability to cope with the things that make us unhappy. It is a wonderful thing that people going through the most extreme torments will often try to look on the bright side of life. But if we stop and look at all of the problems faced by humans and listed here, we can hardly say that life is beautiful. We can hardly find reason to thank that mythical being called God.
Surely, if there was a God, and he was a good and loving God, life would not be filled with such misery. There would not be millions of starving, diseased, oppressed people in Africa and other parts of the world. There would not be so much tragedy, horror, injury, illness, poverty, hunger, anger, war, and death. We would not have to wait for some mythical afterlife to experience a better life. Life on earth would really be beautiful for everyone.
I was speaking to someone and I proposed that if there really was a God, we should not worship or love or adore him, but rather, we should hate him. The person responded that we should worship him because “life is beautiful.” I replied that although life has moments of beauty and happiness, there is far too much sorrow and unhappiness to say that life is beautiful.
Consider the following: The great majority of people in the world live in abject poverty. Most of those people suffer from hunger, disease, famine, tsunamis, cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues, infestations, and war. When one looks at the continents of Africa, Asia, and South America, one wonders how there could be a loving God looking over those people. Hundreds of millions of the people on those continents are subjected to widespread diseases such as cholera, malaria, sleeping sickness, AIDS, Dengue Fever, and Yellow Fever. They have insufficient clothing, shelter ,and medical care. They are ruled-over by tyrants and dictators. Hundreds of millions of women throughout the world are treated as chattels without civil rights. They are beaten, raped, stoned, and subject to genital castration designed to eradicate their sexual pleasure. It is hard to imagine that such people are happy.
What about the lucky people in America and the more affluent countries of Europe? One would think that they have many reasons to thank God. But we need to ask, are the lives of Americans so blessed and happy? Let’s start with health. Practically everybody in America has somebody in their family suffering from some serious illness. Millions of Americans have children with serious congenital diseases and infirmities such as autism, blindness, deafness, physical deformity, Down Syndrome, mental retardation, mental illnesses, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, cancer, and hundreds of other less common syndromes and disorders. The parents of such children often live lives of great sorrow.
Millions of adult Americans also suffer from terrible diseases. Heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, liver disease, Emphysema, Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), AIDS, Crohn’s Disease, chronic pain, and hundreds of other conditions beset the happiness of their lives. Millions of Americans suffer from mental problems, depression, anxiety, fatigue, lonliness, phobias, panic attacks, disabling shyness, and stress throughout their lives. Millions of Americans suffer from the effects of terrible automobile accidents and other injuries. They go through life as cripples with disabled or missing limbs, internal organs, and other essential parts of their bodies, or suffering from terrible pain.
As people get older, they greet a host of problems afflicting older Americans such as strokes, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, hearing and seeing defects, prostate problems, osteoporosis, erectile dysfunction, sleep disorders, Alzheimer’s and memory loss, and hundreds of other medical and psychological problems that impair their happiness. As people age their bodies breaks-down, their skin wrinkles, their hair disappears or turns white, their energy fails, and they lose their sexual ability and attraction.
Millions of Americans are addicted to alcohol, pain medication, and illegal drugs. Almost all of them are living in terrible misery, unable to shake the imprisonment of their addictions. There are millions of homeless people living on the streets, in tents, under bridges, and in shelters. Millions of other Americans are addicted to behavior patterns such as gambling addiction, fetishism, sexual addiction, frigidity, obsessive-compulsive behavior, dependency, and other forms of addiction. There are millions of people with sexual deviations including the need to molest children or rape women. Millions of people engage in abusive behavior, physically beating or verbally berating their spouses, companions, and children. Millions of spouses, companions, and children are victims of such abuse. Such people cannot possibly be happy.
Millions of Americans live in poverty surrounded by a land of plenty. They eke-out a living in slums, tenements, housing projects, trailer parks, and rural shacks. They often go hungry in this land of plenty. Many go without decent clothing, shelter, ordinary medical care, and live in places without heat, cooling, electricity, telephone service, computers, sanitation, or even running water.
Millions of Americans are the victims of discrimination. People of all minorities suffer from bigotry. Millions of homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, and other trans-gender people are the objects of prejudice and condemnation by millions of other people.
Every day one reads in the paper about people who commit crimes. There are thousands of kinds of crimes committed every day by millions of people. It is difficult to guess what percent of the populace is dishonest, violent, dangerous, fraudulent, and deceitful, but judging from the constant news of crimes, schemes, scams, and corruptions, the number must run well into the tens of millions. There are millions of people engaged in serious and not-so-serious crime, including robbery, larceny, drug offenses, burglary, mugging, assault and battery, murder, and thousands of other kinds of crime. Millions of Americans are incarcerated in prisons and jails. There are millions of wives, children, parents, and other close relatives of prison inmates. These people must suffer having their loved ones in jail. There are millions of victims of crimes whose lives have been ruined by the crimes of others.
Millions of Americans are in unhappy marriages or relationships. Millions of Americans are suffering from the breakdown of their marriages or the breakup of relationships in which they were very much in love. Half of all marriages end in divorce. A majority of those who do not get divorced go on living in unhappy marriages. Millions of people are engaged in illicit sexual entanglements that cause them emotional pain and guilt. Millions of people are almost suicidal because of the infidelity of a spouse or loved one. Millions of people suffer from feelings of inferiority or lack of self-worth. Millions of people suffer from the feeling that they are too fat, too thin, or unattractive.
Millions of Americans hate their jobs or suffer under cruel, tyrannical, or sadistic bosses. There are millions of people with sour, nasty, cruel, vicious, malicious, and evil personalities who make it their business in life to damage, spoil, and injure the lives of other people. Millions of people live lives consumed with envy, jealousy, and hatred of others whom they perceive to be more fortunate than they.
Millions of families have children with serious behavior problems. Many of these children may grow up in middle class homes with respectable parents, yet the children are constantly in trouble with school, neighbors, the police, and others. Thousands of such children run away every year only to wind-up on the streets caught-up in drug addiction, prostitution, and crime.
For every Bernard Madoff carrying-out a giant stock swindle, there are thousands of businessmen, brokers, hedge fund managers, and others engaged in insider trading and other blatant violations of the rules of business law and ethics. Millions of Americans cheat others in smaller ways for smaller amounts of money. If one were able to calculate the amount of money embezzled from businesses, organizations, and charities each year it would probably be up in the billions if not trillions. I have known several embezzlers in my lifetime. I’m sure everybody has.
Although one would expect great probity from the wealthiest and most successful people, it is simply not there. Doctors routinely over-bill for services. Andy Rooney told a story about a doctor who came into his room while he was in the hospital for treatment. The doctor said hello and mentioned that he liked Rooney’s work. He then departed without examining or treating Rooney, and later billed Medicare for $240. I have heard many such stories. I have had personal experience with dishonest doctors. One doctor who came in and handed my wife a card while our son was being treated for a broken bone at the hospital, later billed for services even though he did not examine or treat my son at all. Doctors frequently bill for services never rendered. Medicare and Medicaid pay tens of billions for fraudulent claims by physicians who are wealthy by any standard.
Eventually, we die. Death is not a simple leaf dropping off a tree. Death is usually painful. Often, it is horrible. It is usually accompanied by the grief of loved ones.
Yes, life does have its moments of happiness and beauty. There are some wonderful things in life, and some people do live very happy, prosperous, safe, healthy lives. Those people can be thankful for all they have, but they probably represent a small fraction of the people on earth. If you stop and consider all of the unhappiness, pain, disease, grief, and guilt suffered by the vast majority of people in the world, it can hardly be said that life is beautiful.
While many people suffering from the terrible things listed here may not think life is bad, that is because of the human ability to cope with the things that make us unhappy. It is a wonderful thing that people going through the most extreme torments will often try to look on the bright side of life. But if we stop and look at all of the problems faced by humans and listed here, we can hardly say that life is beautiful. We can hardly find reason to thank that mythical being called God.
Surely, if there was a God, and he was a good and loving God, life would not be filled with such misery. There would not be millions of starving, diseased, oppressed people in Africa and other parts of the world. There would not be so much tragedy, horror, injury, illness, poverty, hunger, anger, war, and death. We would not have to wait for some mythical afterlife to experience a better life. Life on earth would really be beautiful for everyone.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Media's Cringing Failure to Confront the Absence of God
Today’s media are bursting with the latest developments in politics, economics, culture, technology, and science, but in one area they remain stagnated in the Middle Ages. No matter how hard you look, you will rarely find a word in any newspaper, magazine, television, or internet source contesting the widely prevailing and erroneous belief that somehow, out there, there exists an invisible, all-powerful being called “God.” Nobody, from the President on down, dares challenge the taboo against seriously discussing this widespread myth. Even the most sophisticated media outlets dare not expose the fact that the emperor, called “religion,” is unclothed.
I am a retired attorney who practiced in New York and Connecticut for 37 years. My entire life was devoted to the consideration of rational evidence. Every court in America adheres to the proposition that the assertion of any claim requires evidence. There is no place in the legal world where you can claim that someone exists who is invisible. You cannot go before any jury and claim that it ought to accept your argument on faith. You have to come up with the cold, hard, empirical facts or you and your client will be tossed out of court on your collective duffs.
For some reason, when it comes to discussing God, this is not the case in the media and popular culture. It is not only de rigueur today to fully accept the claim that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good and loving being who tools around in the sky and controls our lives, but it is a violent sin against political correctness and good manners to suggest that this absurd belief is without any merit.
Every city, town, and village in this land is peppered with churches. A thousand meetings a day are commenced with invocation of a remote deity. Every funeral serves up the comforting pabulum that the deceased is not really dead but has gone to a “better place” (Paris?). We are incessantly assured that despite the conflicting raw evidence of the Holocaust, earthquakes in Haiti, tsunamis in Asia, deadly diseases, the slaughter of 9/11, and the terrible suffering of children everywhere, “God loves us.” We are perpetually advised to pray to this aloof and detached spirit despite the fact that in thousands of years there has never been a scintilla of solid evidence that the divinity has ever answered a single prayer.
Much of organized religion today surrounds itself with medieval rites and trappings calculated to inspire awe and mystery. Many less ostentatious groups, such as Protestants, practice ancient rites of healing, speaking in tongues, and the singing of sacred hymns. Connected to all of this there is a considerable amount of baloney and angling for money. The faithful seem numb to the fraud and deceit inherent in these activities.
Why are the media unable to confront this subject with rational discourse? Why do they shun it like the Swine Flu? Is it because they are afraid of losing customers and advertisers? Is it because they are afraid of offending the hierarchy of the various organized sects and denominations? Do they fear retaliation from conservative politicians? Are they afraid of the millions of ordinary citizens who have invested so much emotional capital in these fairy tales?
Perhaps it would not be a good thing to open up these sources of comfort and consolation to critical examination. Perhaps people should be left alone with their delusions about God, saints, angels, devils, and a moral law based on the word of the Almighty. But I ask, is it moral and proper to go on promulgating a false myth just because it is widely accepted?
The mathematician, William K. Clifford, put it well when he said: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” To Clifford, the life of the man who suppresses doubts and avoids inquiry about questions which might disturb belief is “one long sin against mankind.”
I am a retired attorney who practiced in New York and Connecticut for 37 years. My entire life was devoted to the consideration of rational evidence. Every court in America adheres to the proposition that the assertion of any claim requires evidence. There is no place in the legal world where you can claim that someone exists who is invisible. You cannot go before any jury and claim that it ought to accept your argument on faith. You have to come up with the cold, hard, empirical facts or you and your client will be tossed out of court on your collective duffs.
For some reason, when it comes to discussing God, this is not the case in the media and popular culture. It is not only de rigueur today to fully accept the claim that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good and loving being who tools around in the sky and controls our lives, but it is a violent sin against political correctness and good manners to suggest that this absurd belief is without any merit.
Every city, town, and village in this land is peppered with churches. A thousand meetings a day are commenced with invocation of a remote deity. Every funeral serves up the comforting pabulum that the deceased is not really dead but has gone to a “better place” (Paris?). We are incessantly assured that despite the conflicting raw evidence of the Holocaust, earthquakes in Haiti, tsunamis in Asia, deadly diseases, the slaughter of 9/11, and the terrible suffering of children everywhere, “God loves us.” We are perpetually advised to pray to this aloof and detached spirit despite the fact that in thousands of years there has never been a scintilla of solid evidence that the divinity has ever answered a single prayer.
Much of organized religion today surrounds itself with medieval rites and trappings calculated to inspire awe and mystery. Many less ostentatious groups, such as Protestants, practice ancient rites of healing, speaking in tongues, and the singing of sacred hymns. Connected to all of this there is a considerable amount of baloney and angling for money. The faithful seem numb to the fraud and deceit inherent in these activities.
Why are the media unable to confront this subject with rational discourse? Why do they shun it like the Swine Flu? Is it because they are afraid of losing customers and advertisers? Is it because they are afraid of offending the hierarchy of the various organized sects and denominations? Do they fear retaliation from conservative politicians? Are they afraid of the millions of ordinary citizens who have invested so much emotional capital in these fairy tales?
Perhaps it would not be a good thing to open up these sources of comfort and consolation to critical examination. Perhaps people should be left alone with their delusions about God, saints, angels, devils, and a moral law based on the word of the Almighty. But I ask, is it moral and proper to go on promulgating a false myth just because it is widely accepted?
The mathematician, William K. Clifford, put it well when he said: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” To Clifford, the life of the man who suppresses doubts and avoids inquiry about questions which might disturb belief is “one long sin against mankind.”
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Republicans Pour Trouble on Oiled Waters
The Republicans, who made it a campaign issue during the 2008 elections to call for more drilling of offshore oil, are now sitting-back and enjoying the agonizing difficulty President Obama is having with the catastrophic Gulf oil spill. Despite the fact that the President is in no way responsible for this disaster, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to resolve the problem, Republicans have made it a political issue. If there is any political blame to be handed out for the oil spill, it must go to the Republicans.
As reported on the MSNBC Rachel Maddow show on June 14, 2010, there was an earlier oil explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that poured millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. On June 3, 1979, Ixtoc, an exploratory oil well being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mexican Government, suffered a blowout resulting in the third largest oil spill in history. The well was not capped for over 10 months, by which time over 140 million gallons of oil had had been spilled and had impacted over 162 miles of U.S. beaches. As a result, the U.S. Congress enacted a moratorium on offshore drilling.
Another ban on offshore oil drilling was issued by President George H.W. Bush following the Exxon/Valdes disaster in March, 1989. Because of the opposition of congressional Democrats to offshore drilling, that ban stayed in place until July 14, 2008, when, under pressure from the oil industry and congressional Republicans, President George W. Bush, whose background was that of an oil man, lifted his father’s ban. In his public announcement removing the ban, President Bush criticized the Democrats for their opposition to offshore drilling: Bush said: “For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal.” Bush called-on Congress to remove the ban issued by it following the Ixtoc disaster. He assured the American people that “Advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.”
In September 2009, following President Bush’s lifting of the ban on offshore drilling, at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, BP drilled the deepest offshore oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 feet. This was over a mile below the surface, and at so remote a spot that unless there was a sound plan for dealing with any spill, an explosion of the rig would be catastrophic. But why worry? After all, President Bush, the Republicans in Congress, and the oil companies had assured us that deepwater drilling for oil was now safe thanks to “new technologies.” The problem was, there were no such technologies.
As we all now know, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers, injuring 17 others, and setting off the worst oil spill in history. Documents obtained from BP reveal that the explosion could have been foreseen and prevented. Before the explosion, engineers of the company described the rig as a “nightmare” well with multiple problems. Higher-ups cut many corners in order to avoid spending the necessary funds to make the well safe.
As shown by the fumbling efforts of BP in the past few months, there was no plan on what to do in the event of an explosion. In their zeal to open-up further offshore drilling, and their greed for more oil profits, the oil companies, supported by their Republican allies in Congress, charged ahead with dangerous offshore drilling that has now fouled the Gulf Coast environment, destroyed the economy of Gulf Coast cities, ruined the lives of thousands of Gulf Coast residents, and damaged our nation’s economy.
Instead of being dismayed by these developments, the Republicans are jubilant. They see this harm to our nation and its citizens as an opportunity to gain a political advantage. And they criticize the President for showing a calm demeanor during the crisis instead of collapsing into open emotional turmoil.
This crisis is not the fault of President Obama or of the Democrats. It is the fault of the oil companies and of the Republicans in Congress who set-aside the welfare of our nation and encouraged the drilling for offshore oil without a solid plan for handling deepwater oil spills.
As reported on the MSNBC Rachel Maddow show on June 14, 2010, there was an earlier oil explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that poured millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. On June 3, 1979, Ixtoc, an exploratory oil well being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mexican Government, suffered a blowout resulting in the third largest oil spill in history. The well was not capped for over 10 months, by which time over 140 million gallons of oil had had been spilled and had impacted over 162 miles of U.S. beaches. As a result, the U.S. Congress enacted a moratorium on offshore drilling.
Another ban on offshore oil drilling was issued by President George H.W. Bush following the Exxon/Valdes disaster in March, 1989. Because of the opposition of congressional Democrats to offshore drilling, that ban stayed in place until July 14, 2008, when, under pressure from the oil industry and congressional Republicans, President George W. Bush, whose background was that of an oil man, lifted his father’s ban. In his public announcement removing the ban, President Bush criticized the Democrats for their opposition to offshore drilling: Bush said: “For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal.” Bush called-on Congress to remove the ban issued by it following the Ixtoc disaster. He assured the American people that “Advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.”
In September 2009, following President Bush’s lifting of the ban on offshore drilling, at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, BP drilled the deepest offshore oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 feet. This was over a mile below the surface, and at so remote a spot that unless there was a sound plan for dealing with any spill, an explosion of the rig would be catastrophic. But why worry? After all, President Bush, the Republicans in Congress, and the oil companies had assured us that deepwater drilling for oil was now safe thanks to “new technologies.” The problem was, there were no such technologies.
As we all now know, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers, injuring 17 others, and setting off the worst oil spill in history. Documents obtained from BP reveal that the explosion could have been foreseen and prevented. Before the explosion, engineers of the company described the rig as a “nightmare” well with multiple problems. Higher-ups cut many corners in order to avoid spending the necessary funds to make the well safe.
As shown by the fumbling efforts of BP in the past few months, there was no plan on what to do in the event of an explosion. In their zeal to open-up further offshore drilling, and their greed for more oil profits, the oil companies, supported by their Republican allies in Congress, charged ahead with dangerous offshore drilling that has now fouled the Gulf Coast environment, destroyed the economy of Gulf Coast cities, ruined the lives of thousands of Gulf Coast residents, and damaged our nation’s economy.
Instead of being dismayed by these developments, the Republicans are jubilant. They see this harm to our nation and its citizens as an opportunity to gain a political advantage. And they criticize the President for showing a calm demeanor during the crisis instead of collapsing into open emotional turmoil.
This crisis is not the fault of President Obama or of the Democrats. It is the fault of the oil companies and of the Republicans in Congress who set-aside the welfare of our nation and encouraged the drilling for offshore oil without a solid plan for handling deepwater oil spills.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Health Care Reform and Repeal
One frequently hears these days about how “angry” people are because of the passage of the health care reform bill. In reports I have recently heard, it has become clear to me that most of the people complaining about health care reform actually know nothing about it. Thus, they have been influenced by the dire predictions of health insurance companies, Republicans in Congress, and Tea Party activists. These complainers have not read the bill or any summary of the bill, or any newspaper, magazine, online news source, or other material about the bill. There is a great deal of material out there for people to read and become educated about health care. But most of the people who are complaining are not the kind of people who bother to become well informed about any subject before voicing their opinions.
These people believe that health care reform will bring about huge deficits and bankrupt the country. They are also convinced that because of its large cost the bill will require huge increases in taxes on the middle class. They are totally unaware of the fact that the law will actually lower deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, and by one trillion over the following decade. This has been certified by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
People objecting to the new law do not realize that there are no new taxes on the middle class, but that there are tax increases on people earning over $350,000. Moreover, the increased taxes on high earners are not so bad that they will do harm to the earners or the economy.
One complaint I have heard is that the law will bring-in millions of new patients and make it hard for ordinary people to get an appointment with the doctor. This is apparently what happened in Massachusetts when that state, under Mitch Romney, enacted its health care reform bill. While this may be a temporary problem, the complainers do not realize that the law also provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The complainers fail to recognize that the big increase in people going to the doctor is a good thing, not a bad thing. It means that millions of people who couldn’t get insurance or couldn’t afford it will now be able to see a doctor. The 45,000 people who die each year because of lack of health insurance will now be able to be treated. Organizations like RAM, which go around the country treating people for free, will be able to return to their original mission of treating people in other countries.
The new rallying cry for Republicans is “Repeal!” They claim that they intend to repeal the health care reform law as soon as they get control of Congress. One wonders whether this slogan will appeal so strongly to voters in November after they have had a chance to understand some of the benefits that will accrue to them as a result of the legislation. It may be that the angry shouts of “repeal” will sound like an effort to take-away benefits that voters have come to like, just as some Republicans wanted to take-away Medicare and Social Security.
Would seniors, even strongly conservative seniors, really want to repeal the part of the bill that provides for gradual elimination of the coverage gap or “Doughnut Hole” in Medicare Part D coverage over the next ten years? The reduction of the Doughnut Hole will begin immediately.
Would people, even devout Republicans, who have been turned-down for health insurance because of preexisting conditions, really want repeal of the provision that forbids insurance companies from denying health insurance because of prior conditions? That is another provision that takes effect immediately.
Will anybody want to repeal the provisions of the new law that forbid insurance companies from canceling peoples’ insurance after they become sick, or after reaching an annual or lifetime cap?
Would parents, even right-wingers, who have children over 18, really want repeal of the provision of the law that requires insurance companies to continue carrying children on their parents’ health insurance, if the parents want to keep them on, until the children are 26? This is another provision that will begin right now.
Do business people want to repeal the provisions of the bill that offer tax credits to about 4 million small-business men and women to help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees?
Will people want the Republicans to repeal the provisions of the bill that require all new insurance plans to offer free preventive care, such as pap smears, colonoscopies, breast X-Rays, prostate exams, blood tests and many others?
Will people want to repeal the provisions of the bill that will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
It is probable that the great mass of people who have voiced opposition to this bill are doing so for reasons other than health care or under a set of mistaken assumptions. Such people may oppose the President Obama and the Democrats in Congress on political grounds. They may be motivated by things like abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, and immigration. They may actually have no direct opposition to health care reform itself.
People opposing health care reform are willing dupes when it comes to the myths being spread by the insurance companies, Republican leaders, and Tea Party zealots. A little bit of study would dispel such myths. Among the silliest myths are the following.
Death Panels
Sarah Palin, who ran for Vice President of the United States without having even the minimum amount of education or intelligence that one would expect in a Vice President, spread the falsehood that the new law would create “Death Panels” that would decide whether old and disabled people should live or die. There was no such provision or anything like it. The only thing the bill provided for was the right of a person in a terminal condition to get a free consultation with somebody who could advise them about end-of-life questions such as living wills etc.
Government Takeover
There will be no government take-over of health care. We will still have private health insurance, doctors, hospitals, and clinics. There will simply be a law in place that lowers the cost of health care and guarantees it to most Americans. As Paul Krugman pointed out: “If having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a ‘takeover,’ that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.”
Long Waits
One of the widely spread myths is that health care reform will lead to long waits for treatment in America just as there are long waits in Europe. In fact, the health care reform law will not lead to the kinds of problems they claim for countries with single-payer systems--longer waits for necessary procedures, rationing of health care, and bureaucratic meddling in health care decisions. Just as none of this has been true under Medicare, it will not be true under a health care reform. People who have put-off necessary medical treatment will now be able to go in before it is too late. It was never true that Canada and Europe had far longer waits than the United States. The only waits in those places were for elective surgeries. In Canada and Europe the wait for emergency surgeries is the same as if not better than the United States. The new health care reform law is not a single-payer system or even a public option. It is far different from the laws in Canada and Europe. Nevertheless, people in Canada and Europe love their single-payer health care systems, and we should adopt the single-payer model as soon as possible.
Rationing
Under the new health care law there will be no government-imposed rationing. The fact is that we now have rationing by private insurance companies. As Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent explained: "[P]eople always say, 'Is there going to be rationed care?' And I can tell you, as a practicing physician, as someone who deals with this on a daily basis, rationing does occur all the time.” Insurance companies ration care by rescinding coverage on the grounds that people had preexisting conditions. There will not be any rationing under the new law.
Illegal Immigrants
Another claim by anti-health care reform people is that it will cover undocumented aliens; not true! The law specifically states that those “not lawfully present” in the U.S, may note receive subsidies to purchase insurance.
Tax on Small Businesses
There is a claim that the law will cause staggering taxes on small businesses; not true. Only 4.1 percent of all small businesses will have tax increases. The legislation would establish a 1 percent tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5 percent tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; and a 5.4 percent tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. That would exclude 95.9 percent of all small businesses from the tax.
There is a solution to people’s problems with health care reform. It is called education. Knowing what you are talking about is a great advantage. If people studied the law and paid attention to all of the information available in papers, magazines, and the internet, they would not be “angry” about the law. They would pleased with it and hungry for more.
These people believe that health care reform will bring about huge deficits and bankrupt the country. They are also convinced that because of its large cost the bill will require huge increases in taxes on the middle class. They are totally unaware of the fact that the law will actually lower deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, and by one trillion over the following decade. This has been certified by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
People objecting to the new law do not realize that there are no new taxes on the middle class, but that there are tax increases on people earning over $350,000. Moreover, the increased taxes on high earners are not so bad that they will do harm to the earners or the economy.
One complaint I have heard is that the law will bring-in millions of new patients and make it hard for ordinary people to get an appointment with the doctor. This is apparently what happened in Massachusetts when that state, under Mitch Romney, enacted its health care reform bill. While this may be a temporary problem, the complainers do not realize that the law also provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The complainers fail to recognize that the big increase in people going to the doctor is a good thing, not a bad thing. It means that millions of people who couldn’t get insurance or couldn’t afford it will now be able to see a doctor. The 45,000 people who die each year because of lack of health insurance will now be able to be treated. Organizations like RAM, which go around the country treating people for free, will be able to return to their original mission of treating people in other countries.
The new rallying cry for Republicans is “Repeal!” They claim that they intend to repeal the health care reform law as soon as they get control of Congress. One wonders whether this slogan will appeal so strongly to voters in November after they have had a chance to understand some of the benefits that will accrue to them as a result of the legislation. It may be that the angry shouts of “repeal” will sound like an effort to take-away benefits that voters have come to like, just as some Republicans wanted to take-away Medicare and Social Security.
Would seniors, even strongly conservative seniors, really want to repeal the part of the bill that provides for gradual elimination of the coverage gap or “Doughnut Hole” in Medicare Part D coverage over the next ten years? The reduction of the Doughnut Hole will begin immediately.
Would people, even devout Republicans, who have been turned-down for health insurance because of preexisting conditions, really want repeal of the provision that forbids insurance companies from denying health insurance because of prior conditions? That is another provision that takes effect immediately.
Will anybody want to repeal the provisions of the new law that forbid insurance companies from canceling peoples’ insurance after they become sick, or after reaching an annual or lifetime cap?
Would parents, even right-wingers, who have children over 18, really want repeal of the provision of the law that requires insurance companies to continue carrying children on their parents’ health insurance, if the parents want to keep them on, until the children are 26? This is another provision that will begin right now.
Do business people want to repeal the provisions of the bill that offer tax credits to about 4 million small-business men and women to help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees?
Will people want the Republicans to repeal the provisions of the bill that require all new insurance plans to offer free preventive care, such as pap smears, colonoscopies, breast X-Rays, prostate exams, blood tests and many others?
Will people want to repeal the provisions of the bill that will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
It is probable that the great mass of people who have voiced opposition to this bill are doing so for reasons other than health care or under a set of mistaken assumptions. Such people may oppose the President Obama and the Democrats in Congress on political grounds. They may be motivated by things like abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, and immigration. They may actually have no direct opposition to health care reform itself.
People opposing health care reform are willing dupes when it comes to the myths being spread by the insurance companies, Republican leaders, and Tea Party zealots. A little bit of study would dispel such myths. Among the silliest myths are the following.
Death Panels
Sarah Palin, who ran for Vice President of the United States without having even the minimum amount of education or intelligence that one would expect in a Vice President, spread the falsehood that the new law would create “Death Panels” that would decide whether old and disabled people should live or die. There was no such provision or anything like it. The only thing the bill provided for was the right of a person in a terminal condition to get a free consultation with somebody who could advise them about end-of-life questions such as living wills etc.
Government Takeover
There will be no government take-over of health care. We will still have private health insurance, doctors, hospitals, and clinics. There will simply be a law in place that lowers the cost of health care and guarantees it to most Americans. As Paul Krugman pointed out: “If having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a ‘takeover,’ that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.”
Long Waits
One of the widely spread myths is that health care reform will lead to long waits for treatment in America just as there are long waits in Europe. In fact, the health care reform law will not lead to the kinds of problems they claim for countries with single-payer systems--longer waits for necessary procedures, rationing of health care, and bureaucratic meddling in health care decisions. Just as none of this has been true under Medicare, it will not be true under a health care reform. People who have put-off necessary medical treatment will now be able to go in before it is too late. It was never true that Canada and Europe had far longer waits than the United States. The only waits in those places were for elective surgeries. In Canada and Europe the wait for emergency surgeries is the same as if not better than the United States. The new health care reform law is not a single-payer system or even a public option. It is far different from the laws in Canada and Europe. Nevertheless, people in Canada and Europe love their single-payer health care systems, and we should adopt the single-payer model as soon as possible.
Rationing
Under the new health care law there will be no government-imposed rationing. The fact is that we now have rationing by private insurance companies. As Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent explained: "[P]eople always say, 'Is there going to be rationed care?' And I can tell you, as a practicing physician, as someone who deals with this on a daily basis, rationing does occur all the time.” Insurance companies ration care by rescinding coverage on the grounds that people had preexisting conditions. There will not be any rationing under the new law.
Illegal Immigrants
Another claim by anti-health care reform people is that it will cover undocumented aliens; not true! The law specifically states that those “not lawfully present” in the U.S, may note receive subsidies to purchase insurance.
Tax on Small Businesses
There is a claim that the law will cause staggering taxes on small businesses; not true. Only 4.1 percent of all small businesses will have tax increases. The legislation would establish a 1 percent tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5 percent tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; and a 5.4 percent tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. That would exclude 95.9 percent of all small businesses from the tax.
There is a solution to people’s problems with health care reform. It is called education. Knowing what you are talking about is a great advantage. If people studied the law and paid attention to all of the information available in papers, magazines, and the internet, they would not be “angry” about the law. They would pleased with it and hungry for more.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Death of a Liberal Column
Word came in a hurriedly written e-mail from the editor of the Greene County Dailies: “After careful review of the newspapers we making some major changes to its content, therefore we have decided to discontinuing your column at this time…” I did not mind the grammatical problems with the notice. I assumed that as a new editor working for a new publisher she was in a hurry and didn’t proofread what she had written. I did mind that after seven years as the sole liberal voice of a newspaper in rock-solid Republican Greene County of Southwestern Ohio, my voice was being extinguished.
After spending most of my 60 years living in the Northeast, I had come out here from Connecticut to be with my college sweetheart. I had settled in Xenia, a friendly place surrounded by farms, where baseball caps, pickup trucks, and deep conservative beliefs predominate.
The intrepid publisher of the local paper was impressed with some of my letters to the editor and, knowing that I had written columns for papers in the East, said that the paper would gladly print my columns. He might have regretted this decision, even though he told everybody that I was the best writer he had. I started out writing in support of the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage. The publisher told me that he was getting lots of telephone calls complaining about me. I think that the readers had never seen anything in the local paper like my columns.
Things turned really ugly when I wrote a series of articles about evolution and the pseudo-science called “Intelligent Design.” Angry letters poured into the paper. As the volume of calls to the editor increased, the invective against me became more virulent. My columns in support of Barack Obama and against John McCain incensed people. I was told that the editor decided not to come in on the days my columns appeared because of the avalanche of complaining calls.
I discovered that many of the most hostile letters came from people in the extreme right-wing. The local leader of the John Birch Society excoriated me. When I wrote an article against guns, one writer opined that they might have to use their Second Amendment rights against me. Friends told me to watch my back. One writer, who objected to my column against militias and the Ku Klux Klan, said that I had “defiled” myself. A surprisingly large number of the letters were illiterate in tone and syntax.
The anger reached its zenith when I wrote a column making-fun of the Tea Parties. In my opening line I quoted from Alice in Wonderland: “`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!’ ” I went on to compare Neil Cavuto of Fox News to the Dormouse, Sean Hannity to the March Hare, and Newt Gingrich to the Mad Hatter. The locals were furious!
People would often come-up to me at Kiwanis picnics, look furtively around, and whisper that they agreed with everything I wrote. But in seven years of writing columns, there was not one single letter supporting me. People were simply afraid of the ostracism they would experience if they came out in open support of this dirty, pinko, liberal writer.
Well, the kids will not be exposed to my subversive opinions anymore. Secure in the knowledge that they will no longer be challenged to critical thought, the people around here can sit-back and revert to their old ideas and comfortable prejudices.
After spending most of my 60 years living in the Northeast, I had come out here from Connecticut to be with my college sweetheart. I had settled in Xenia, a friendly place surrounded by farms, where baseball caps, pickup trucks, and deep conservative beliefs predominate.
The intrepid publisher of the local paper was impressed with some of my letters to the editor and, knowing that I had written columns for papers in the East, said that the paper would gladly print my columns. He might have regretted this decision, even though he told everybody that I was the best writer he had. I started out writing in support of the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage. The publisher told me that he was getting lots of telephone calls complaining about me. I think that the readers had never seen anything in the local paper like my columns.
Things turned really ugly when I wrote a series of articles about evolution and the pseudo-science called “Intelligent Design.” Angry letters poured into the paper. As the volume of calls to the editor increased, the invective against me became more virulent. My columns in support of Barack Obama and against John McCain incensed people. I was told that the editor decided not to come in on the days my columns appeared because of the avalanche of complaining calls.
I discovered that many of the most hostile letters came from people in the extreme right-wing. The local leader of the John Birch Society excoriated me. When I wrote an article against guns, one writer opined that they might have to use their Second Amendment rights against me. Friends told me to watch my back. One writer, who objected to my column against militias and the Ku Klux Klan, said that I had “defiled” myself. A surprisingly large number of the letters were illiterate in tone and syntax.
The anger reached its zenith when I wrote a column making-fun of the Tea Parties. In my opening line I quoted from Alice in Wonderland: “`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!’ ” I went on to compare Neil Cavuto of Fox News to the Dormouse, Sean Hannity to the March Hare, and Newt Gingrich to the Mad Hatter. The locals were furious!
People would often come-up to me at Kiwanis picnics, look furtively around, and whisper that they agreed with everything I wrote. But in seven years of writing columns, there was not one single letter supporting me. People were simply afraid of the ostracism they would experience if they came out in open support of this dirty, pinko, liberal writer.
Well, the kids will not be exposed to my subversive opinions anymore. Secure in the knowledge that they will no longer be challenged to critical thought, the people around here can sit-back and revert to their old ideas and comfortable prejudices.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Conservatism--A Default Position
Conservatism is fundamentally a default position. It is the bedrock belief of millions of people in rural and small-town America who never lived in a big city, never went to college, never traveled abroad, and almost never even knew a liberal. It is the original default belief of the great mass of ordinary Americans.
People rarely become conservative. They start-out conservative. One almost never hears about somebody coming from a liberal family, going off to college, and coming back a conservative. One frequently hears the opposite. Young people go to college, are exposed to mind-opening ideas and bright fellow students, and come back with liberal thoughts that drive their conservative parents crazy. It happened to me.
For this reason, I believe that conservatism is not really a political philosophy. It is the absence of philosophy. It is the failure to imagine a better world, the failure to desire change, the unwillingness to examine one’s prejudices and limitations. Men like Edmund Burke did not propose any new way of thinking. They simply spoke-out against movements and ideas that altered the status quo. Burke’s greatest work was his critique of the French Revolution.
It is true that there has developed a group of so-called conservative intellectuals, men like William F. Buckley and George Will. But these people do not expound some new philosophy. They simply justify the regressive, recalcitrant, and reactionary positions created in response to the ideas developed by liberals. This is best exemplified by today’s Republicans in Congress. They have no program or plan. Their only position is one of opposition to virtually everything proposed by the liberal Democrats and the President.
This explains why conservatism is so popular with so many people. One of the two great political parties in America is built on conservatism, and frequently, as now, the more conservative the politicians of that party are the more popular they are. People are conservative because they do not like ideas that upset their picture of the world and how it should be. One example is the issue of same-sex marriage.
Most people over 50 years of age grew up in a world where marriage was solely between a man and a woman. That was the default position. Nobody ever questioned it. The majority of people believed that homosexuals were deviant people whom one avoided. Nobody spoke about homosexuals except to make jokes about them. It was unimaginable that such people would actually want to get married to one another. Suddenly, people saw on television that gays wanted to get married. It was a tearing-apart of the fabric of the cosmos, a violent challenge to all that is normal and accepted. It made conservatives deeply uncomfortable. Although they tried to think-up practical reasons why same-sex marriage would somehow harm the establishment of heterosexual marriage, their real opposition was simply based on the shocking newness of the idea. They felt that it was making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. They also believed that same-sex marriage would somehow legitimatize homosexuality which they had always been led to consider a moral deviation and a sin.
Liberalism is always a process of new thought. Liberals refuse to accept the old ways of thinking. They are the iconoclasts who question all of the old values, old beliefs, old religions, and old mores of society. True Liberalism is never a default philosophy. It is always an intellectual exploration and adventure. For this reason, it is mostly the philosophy of educated people, urban people, and broad-minded people. Because liberals support the rights of the poor, blue collar workers, union members, minorities, and immigrants, these people agree with the politics of liberals. But such people are, for the most part, acting out of self-interest, not on the basis of political ideology.
Conservative opposition to governmental programs to help the poor is not based on some carefully crafted ideology. It is based on reaction to the duty of paying taxes and upon animus toward poor people. It also has a strong racial or ethnic basis. Conservatives prefer all of the old ways of doing things, such as confining charity to private giving. There is no philosophy behind this way of thinking. Similarly, there is no theological thinking behind the fact that conservatives support religion and wish to see prayer in schools and religious images in public places. It is simply that they wish to retain the traditional way of permeating public life with religion as opposed to liberals’ preference for separating church and state.
People rarely become conservative. They start-out conservative. One almost never hears about somebody coming from a liberal family, going off to college, and coming back a conservative. One frequently hears the opposite. Young people go to college, are exposed to mind-opening ideas and bright fellow students, and come back with liberal thoughts that drive their conservative parents crazy. It happened to me.
For this reason, I believe that conservatism is not really a political philosophy. It is the absence of philosophy. It is the failure to imagine a better world, the failure to desire change, the unwillingness to examine one’s prejudices and limitations. Men like Edmund Burke did not propose any new way of thinking. They simply spoke-out against movements and ideas that altered the status quo. Burke’s greatest work was his critique of the French Revolution.
It is true that there has developed a group of so-called conservative intellectuals, men like William F. Buckley and George Will. But these people do not expound some new philosophy. They simply justify the regressive, recalcitrant, and reactionary positions created in response to the ideas developed by liberals. This is best exemplified by today’s Republicans in Congress. They have no program or plan. Their only position is one of opposition to virtually everything proposed by the liberal Democrats and the President.
This explains why conservatism is so popular with so many people. One of the two great political parties in America is built on conservatism, and frequently, as now, the more conservative the politicians of that party are the more popular they are. People are conservative because they do not like ideas that upset their picture of the world and how it should be. One example is the issue of same-sex marriage.
Most people over 50 years of age grew up in a world where marriage was solely between a man and a woman. That was the default position. Nobody ever questioned it. The majority of people believed that homosexuals were deviant people whom one avoided. Nobody spoke about homosexuals except to make jokes about them. It was unimaginable that such people would actually want to get married to one another. Suddenly, people saw on television that gays wanted to get married. It was a tearing-apart of the fabric of the cosmos, a violent challenge to all that is normal and accepted. It made conservatives deeply uncomfortable. Although they tried to think-up practical reasons why same-sex marriage would somehow harm the establishment of heterosexual marriage, their real opposition was simply based on the shocking newness of the idea. They felt that it was making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. They also believed that same-sex marriage would somehow legitimatize homosexuality which they had always been led to consider a moral deviation and a sin.
Liberalism is always a process of new thought. Liberals refuse to accept the old ways of thinking. They are the iconoclasts who question all of the old values, old beliefs, old religions, and old mores of society. True Liberalism is never a default philosophy. It is always an intellectual exploration and adventure. For this reason, it is mostly the philosophy of educated people, urban people, and broad-minded people. Because liberals support the rights of the poor, blue collar workers, union members, minorities, and immigrants, these people agree with the politics of liberals. But such people are, for the most part, acting out of self-interest, not on the basis of political ideology.
Conservative opposition to governmental programs to help the poor is not based on some carefully crafted ideology. It is based on reaction to the duty of paying taxes and upon animus toward poor people. It also has a strong racial or ethnic basis. Conservatives prefer all of the old ways of doing things, such as confining charity to private giving. There is no philosophy behind this way of thinking. Similarly, there is no theological thinking behind the fact that conservatives support religion and wish to see prayer in schools and religious images in public places. It is simply that they wish to retain the traditional way of permeating public life with religion as opposed to liberals’ preference for separating church and state.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Budget Reconciliation and Health Care Reform
Despite the assumption by Republicans that they represent a majority of the American people, the Democrats hold a majority of the seats in Congress. Up until now, buoyed by the lavish spending of health insurance companies, the Senate Republicans have been able to stall health care reform. Lately, however, there has been a shift in the polls. The public is increasingly indicating support for health care reform and for President Obama.
One major distortion spread by the Republicans is that the bill will vastly increase budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled, however, that the Senate bill will actually reduce budget deficits. This is because the bill is essentially a budget bill. Due to Republican recalcitrance, the Democrats are now forced to use a procedure designed specifically for budget matters. It is called “Budget Reconciliation.” Now that they’ve passed a health care reform bill, the Senate Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the final changes to the bill.
Republicans threaten that if the Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass the health care reform bill it will be “all-out war.” I would like to know what they consider their wall-to-wall obstruction, distortion, and filibustering to be if not all-out war against President Obama and the Democrats.
Budget reconciliation is a legislative process of the Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit. Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a treating a bill as a reconciliation bill. His objection will then be ruled upon by the Presiding Officer, who is officially the Vice President. The Presiding Officer customarily rules on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, but need not follow that advice. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling of the Presiding Officer. Once the presiding officer rules that a bill is a budget reconciliation matter, the bill cannot be filibustered and requires only 51 votes of the full senate, or a majority of those present, to pass.
In case you question whether the health care reform bill is a budget measure, consider the fact that there are a large number of provisions in the bill dealing with revenue. There are several provisions imposing additional taxes on high-income individuals and couples, including Section 1905, which increases the Medicare tax on wages of individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. There is an excise tax on voluntary cosmetic procedures, an increase in the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction on medical costs, and a tax on the health insurance industry. These and other taxes will not only cover the cost of health care reform, but will actually reduce the overall deficit.
It is with ill grace that the Republicans object to the use of budget reconciliation to pass bills affecting the budget. They made repeated use of it when they were in power. Republicans used it to pass the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. They used it to pass the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, in which Bush cut taxes for the rich and helped abolish the surpluses created during the Clinton years. Those tax cuts were strongly opposed by the Democrats, and by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates. Another reconciliation bill by the Republicans was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which slowed the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, and changed formulas for student loans and other programs.
President Obama tried to change the environment in Washington and to work with the Republicans. He honestly believed that the relationship between the parties was far too poisonous and that this was bad for the country. The Republicans decided to rebuff his every effort. Now the Democrats have to act alone.
One major distortion spread by the Republicans is that the bill will vastly increase budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled, however, that the Senate bill will actually reduce budget deficits. This is because the bill is essentially a budget bill. Due to Republican recalcitrance, the Democrats are now forced to use a procedure designed specifically for budget matters. It is called “Budget Reconciliation.” Now that they’ve passed a health care reform bill, the Senate Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the final changes to the bill.
Republicans threaten that if the Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass the health care reform bill it will be “all-out war.” I would like to know what they consider their wall-to-wall obstruction, distortion, and filibustering to be if not all-out war against President Obama and the Democrats.
Budget reconciliation is a legislative process of the Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit. Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a treating a bill as a reconciliation bill. His objection will then be ruled upon by the Presiding Officer, who is officially the Vice President. The Presiding Officer customarily rules on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, but need not follow that advice. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling of the Presiding Officer. Once the presiding officer rules that a bill is a budget reconciliation matter, the bill cannot be filibustered and requires only 51 votes of the full senate, or a majority of those present, to pass.
In case you question whether the health care reform bill is a budget measure, consider the fact that there are a large number of provisions in the bill dealing with revenue. There are several provisions imposing additional taxes on high-income individuals and couples, including Section 1905, which increases the Medicare tax on wages of individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. There is an excise tax on voluntary cosmetic procedures, an increase in the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction on medical costs, and a tax on the health insurance industry. These and other taxes will not only cover the cost of health care reform, but will actually reduce the overall deficit.
It is with ill grace that the Republicans object to the use of budget reconciliation to pass bills affecting the budget. They made repeated use of it when they were in power. Republicans used it to pass the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. They used it to pass the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, in which Bush cut taxes for the rich and helped abolish the surpluses created during the Clinton years. Those tax cuts were strongly opposed by the Democrats, and by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates. Another reconciliation bill by the Republicans was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which slowed the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, and changed formulas for student loans and other programs.
President Obama tried to change the environment in Washington and to work with the Republicans. He honestly believed that the relationship between the parties was far too poisonous and that this was bad for the country. The Republicans decided to rebuff his every effort. Now the Democrats have to act alone.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Senate Needs to Change Rules
The U.S. Senate needs to change its rules. Although I have been critical of the abuse by Republicans of the filibuster, I can understand the protection it provides to a political minority. But recently, we have been treated to examples of how the tyranny of a solitary senator can gum-up the works of government.
Two weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky single-handedly blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits, along with Cobra health benefits, for over a million-and-a-half people. Bunning’s maneuver also, among other things, halted construction work across the country and cut Medicare payments to doctors.
Because of Republican filibusters, the spending bills needed to fund these essential programs were put-off until they were about to expire. It became necessary for the Democrats to use expedited procedures to continue the programs. Bunning’s objections denied the Senate the “unanimous consent” that Senate rules require for expedited procedures. Finally last week, under pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning relented.
Bunning, who is retiring, has long been considered a loose cannon and a thorn in the side of the Republicans in Congress. Bunning’s frequent absences from important senate votes and numerous loony statements have led some to question his sanity. He attacked fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, accusing him of being responsible for lost GOP seats in Congress. When Bunning learned that Republicans would not support his reelection bid, he threatened to resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name his replacement.
This is the problem. One nutty senator has the power to block legislation, even bipartisan legislation, simply by refusing to agree to unanimous consent for the frequently used expedited procedures. The act of halting legislation has not, however, been confined to head-cases like Bunning. Lone senators routinely put holds on legislation and presidential appointments. Perhaps the most egregious case is the recent act of Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Shelby placed a hold on all of President Obama’s nominees in an apparent protest over earmarks. This stopped Senate approval of 70 appointees nominated by the President, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.
Shelby did not act on the basis of any conservative political principle or because he opposed the appointees. His objections were more basic. He believed that he wasn’t getting the amount of pork he deserved. He was frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to jobs in Mobile, Alabama. He was also “deeply concerned” that the Administration had not released funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.
As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering earmarks to Alabama. He finally released his hold on most of the appointments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "If you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold-up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn't get his earmarks."
Senator Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) exercised his own form of protest by holding-up the nomination of the man nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). You would think that after the attempt to blow-up an airliner on Christmas day, appointment of an administrator for the TSA would be of paramount importance. Not to one demented senator. DeMint did not express any specific opposition to the nominee, a former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert. He claimed that he needed further testimony to clarify the nominee’s stand on unionizing the TSA.
The Senate needs to change this strange rule that gives a single stubborn senator the power to bring the Senate and the government of the United States to its knees.
Two weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky single-handedly blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits, along with Cobra health benefits, for over a million-and-a-half people. Bunning’s maneuver also, among other things, halted construction work across the country and cut Medicare payments to doctors.
Because of Republican filibusters, the spending bills needed to fund these essential programs were put-off until they were about to expire. It became necessary for the Democrats to use expedited procedures to continue the programs. Bunning’s objections denied the Senate the “unanimous consent” that Senate rules require for expedited procedures. Finally last week, under pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning relented.
Bunning, who is retiring, has long been considered a loose cannon and a thorn in the side of the Republicans in Congress. Bunning’s frequent absences from important senate votes and numerous loony statements have led some to question his sanity. He attacked fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, accusing him of being responsible for lost GOP seats in Congress. When Bunning learned that Republicans would not support his reelection bid, he threatened to resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name his replacement.
This is the problem. One nutty senator has the power to block legislation, even bipartisan legislation, simply by refusing to agree to unanimous consent for the frequently used expedited procedures. The act of halting legislation has not, however, been confined to head-cases like Bunning. Lone senators routinely put holds on legislation and presidential appointments. Perhaps the most egregious case is the recent act of Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Shelby placed a hold on all of President Obama’s nominees in an apparent protest over earmarks. This stopped Senate approval of 70 appointees nominated by the President, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.
Shelby did not act on the basis of any conservative political principle or because he opposed the appointees. His objections were more basic. He believed that he wasn’t getting the amount of pork he deserved. He was frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to jobs in Mobile, Alabama. He was also “deeply concerned” that the Administration had not released funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.
As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering earmarks to Alabama. He finally released his hold on most of the appointments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "If you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold-up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn't get his earmarks."
Senator Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) exercised his own form of protest by holding-up the nomination of the man nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). You would think that after the attempt to blow-up an airliner on Christmas day, appointment of an administrator for the TSA would be of paramount importance. Not to one demented senator. DeMint did not express any specific opposition to the nominee, a former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert. He claimed that he needed further testimony to clarify the nominee’s stand on unionizing the TSA.
The Senate needs to change this strange rule that gives a single stubborn senator the power to bring the Senate and the government of the United States to its knees.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
A Crack in Republican Obstruction
You would think that the public would be on to the Republican program of total obstruction in Congress, but it isn’t. The Republicans have decided to oppose, and in the Senate, filibuster, every single initiative of the Obama Administration regardless of the merits of the initiative and regardless of whether the initiative would benefit the American people and help the economy. The Republican leadership has speculated that the result of all-out opposition to Democratic legislation would make it look like President Obama and the Democrats are accomplishing nothing. They have assumed that this would lead to public disillusionment with the President and a renewed support for the Republicans. They have been right. The results of recent elections seem to reflect a belief on the part of the public that Democrats are ineffective and that the President does not have what it takes to improve the economy and relieve unemployment.
Of course, this policy of the Republicans is the product of profound cynicism. They do not care if millions of people go on being unemployed, uninsured, without housing, shelter, or food. They do not care if our states and localities are without sufficient money to fund education, health care, construction, programs for the homeless, and many other urgently needed projects. All they care about is winning-back Congress and defeating President Obama in 2012. This is very sad. A once proud party has become the party of despair.
There may, however, be a crack in the monolithic unity of the Republican Party. Recently, the Republicans were able to elect one of their own, Senator Scott Brown, to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. There was much rejoicing by Republicans at this coup, and much predicting that the Democrats were on the decline. But there was also a little fact that Republicans ignored. Their handsome new senator is also a fairly liberal Republican. This will not sit well with the Tea Party types who were instrumental in his election. Apparently, he supports freedom of choice on abortion, says same-sex marriage is “settled law” in Massachusetts, and is independent of the lock-step thinking imposed by Republican congressional leadership on Republican members.
The crack in the Republican front first appeared in a vote on the $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats. Senator Scott Brown was the first member of his party to cast his vote for overcoming the Republican filibuster on the measure. He was followed by Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Christopher Bond of Missouri, all of whom voted after it became evident that the Democrats would prevail. Nevertheless, 29 Republican senators voted against the bill.
You would have thought that such legislation, in this time of wretched, desperate unemployment, would have garnered 100 votes in the Senate. You would have thought that every senator would have compassion for the plight of the unemployed. You would have thought such empathy would have overcome all political considerations. And you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, there are some Republican senators who are willing to risk their future with the Republican Party and buck the demands of Republican leadership. One of them is Scott Brown. Our senator, George Voinovich, who is retiring, appears to be another.
There are now pending some items of legislation critical to this nation. More help is needed to improve the economy and overcome unemployment. Health care reform is essential for the future of American business and of the American people. Climate change legislation is essential for the future of the planet. The question is whether some Republicans will step up to the plate and put the interests of their country first, or whether they will revert to the nay-saying culture that is tearing us apart.
Of course, this policy of the Republicans is the product of profound cynicism. They do not care if millions of people go on being unemployed, uninsured, without housing, shelter, or food. They do not care if our states and localities are without sufficient money to fund education, health care, construction, programs for the homeless, and many other urgently needed projects. All they care about is winning-back Congress and defeating President Obama in 2012. This is very sad. A once proud party has become the party of despair.
There may, however, be a crack in the monolithic unity of the Republican Party. Recently, the Republicans were able to elect one of their own, Senator Scott Brown, to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. There was much rejoicing by Republicans at this coup, and much predicting that the Democrats were on the decline. But there was also a little fact that Republicans ignored. Their handsome new senator is also a fairly liberal Republican. This will not sit well with the Tea Party types who were instrumental in his election. Apparently, he supports freedom of choice on abortion, says same-sex marriage is “settled law” in Massachusetts, and is independent of the lock-step thinking imposed by Republican congressional leadership on Republican members.
The crack in the Republican front first appeared in a vote on the $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats. Senator Scott Brown was the first member of his party to cast his vote for overcoming the Republican filibuster on the measure. He was followed by Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Christopher Bond of Missouri, all of whom voted after it became evident that the Democrats would prevail. Nevertheless, 29 Republican senators voted against the bill.
You would have thought that such legislation, in this time of wretched, desperate unemployment, would have garnered 100 votes in the Senate. You would have thought that every senator would have compassion for the plight of the unemployed. You would have thought such empathy would have overcome all political considerations. And you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, there are some Republican senators who are willing to risk their future with the Republican Party and buck the demands of Republican leadership. One of them is Scott Brown. Our senator, George Voinovich, who is retiring, appears to be another.
There are now pending some items of legislation critical to this nation. More help is needed to improve the economy and overcome unemployment. Health care reform is essential for the future of American business and of the American people. Climate change legislation is essential for the future of the planet. The question is whether some Republicans will step up to the plate and put the interests of their country first, or whether they will revert to the nay-saying culture that is tearing us apart.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tea Parties and Militias
Last May I noted the resurgence of the militia movement and the generous contribution they are making to the paranoia, fear, and stupidity of modern-day political dialogue. Now, it seems that militia types and their ideological allies have been inviting themselves to the Tea Parties.
The Tea Party movement represents a spectrum of ideas that runs from little old Republican ladies who enjoy tea cakes along with their politics to militia members who enjoy blasting effigies of President Obama with their AK47s. The resurgence of the militias and their crashing of the Tea Parties is a matter of some concern to civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to a recent report by the SPLC: “The situation has many authorities worried. Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing" (under the Tea Party banner).
In the 1990s, when the last liberal Democratic president was in office, the militias thrived. These groups were under the impression that the federal government was planning a socialistic take-over of America. Their bogyman was a mythical “Black Helicopter” that was supposedly conducting surveillance of and preparing for war against the gun-toting patriots of America. The militias’ activities culminated in the bombing by two militia members, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City--killing 168 innocent adults and children.
Now, with liberals back in power, the militias, and organizations sharing their beliefs, are on the rise. The SPLC report noted that in Pensacola, Fla., a militia spokesman told a gathering of antigovernment “Patriots” that the federal government had set-up 1,000 internment camps across the country and was storing 30,000 guillotines and a half-million caskets in Atlanta. He averred that they are there for the day the government finally declares martial law and moves-in to round-up or kill American dissenters.
Outside Atlanta, a so-called "American Grand Jury" issued an "indictment" of President Obama for fraud and treason because, the panel concluded, he wasn't born in the United States and is illegally occupying the office of president. Other sham "grand juries" around the country have followed suit.
There is a new element to this second wave of militia revival. According to the SPLC report: “One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration.”
This racial hatred has popped-up in Tea Party gatherings where demonstrators have waived racist signs and posters showing President Obama as a witch doctor and saying things like “Obama’s plan--white slavery” and “Save white America from Obama.”
Needless to say, these militia groups, and those affiliated with them, are not in competition with MENSA for the best minds available. These groups are made-up of the most ignorant elements of white America. These are mostly losers whose resentment stems from the fact that they have achieved nothing in society while the leaders in this country are mostly intelligent, well-educated, sophisticated, elite individuals who look down on the militia types.
One hopes that the little old ladies and other Republican guests at the Tea Parties will look-around and be aware of the party crashers from the far-right who would rather slurp from the mug of conspiracy than sip from the teacup of sanity.
The Tea Party movement represents a spectrum of ideas that runs from little old Republican ladies who enjoy tea cakes along with their politics to militia members who enjoy blasting effigies of President Obama with their AK47s. The resurgence of the militias and their crashing of the Tea Parties is a matter of some concern to civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to a recent report by the SPLC: “The situation has many authorities worried. Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing" (under the Tea Party banner).
In the 1990s, when the last liberal Democratic president was in office, the militias thrived. These groups were under the impression that the federal government was planning a socialistic take-over of America. Their bogyman was a mythical “Black Helicopter” that was supposedly conducting surveillance of and preparing for war against the gun-toting patriots of America. The militias’ activities culminated in the bombing by two militia members, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City--killing 168 innocent adults and children.
Now, with liberals back in power, the militias, and organizations sharing their beliefs, are on the rise. The SPLC report noted that in Pensacola, Fla., a militia spokesman told a gathering of antigovernment “Patriots” that the federal government had set-up 1,000 internment camps across the country and was storing 30,000 guillotines and a half-million caskets in Atlanta. He averred that they are there for the day the government finally declares martial law and moves-in to round-up or kill American dissenters.
Outside Atlanta, a so-called "American Grand Jury" issued an "indictment" of President Obama for fraud and treason because, the panel concluded, he wasn't born in the United States and is illegally occupying the office of president. Other sham "grand juries" around the country have followed suit.
There is a new element to this second wave of militia revival. According to the SPLC report: “One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration.”
This racial hatred has popped-up in Tea Party gatherings where demonstrators have waived racist signs and posters showing President Obama as a witch doctor and saying things like “Obama’s plan--white slavery” and “Save white America from Obama.”
Needless to say, these militia groups, and those affiliated with them, are not in competition with MENSA for the best minds available. These groups are made-up of the most ignorant elements of white America. These are mostly losers whose resentment stems from the fact that they have achieved nothing in society while the leaders in this country are mostly intelligent, well-educated, sophisticated, elite individuals who look down on the militia types.
One hopes that the little old ladies and other Republican guests at the Tea Parties will look-around and be aware of the party crashers from the far-right who would rather slurp from the mug of conspiracy than sip from the teacup of sanity.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Republicans and the Census
Republicans have always portrayed themselves as paragons of patriotism and devoted supporters of the Constitution. It has, therefore, been something of an anomaly to find that they dislike one of the fundamental principles of our nation—democracy. The idea behind true democracy is that every adult citizen in a nation has the right to vote regardless of his or her race, wealth, occupation, origin, education, religion, or political opinion.
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution provides for a nationwide census every ten years in order to enumerate the population. The results are used to allocate Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and the funding of governmental programs. Republicans are, at the very least, suspicious of, if not down right hostile to the census.
If the census counted only white, Anglo-Saxon, financially stable, Christian citizens, Republicans would have no problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it also counts minorities, immigrants, the poor, non-Christians, and the homeless. Many Republicans would prefer that these types were not even part of the American population, and feel strongly that they should not be considered part of the electorate. They are aware that many of these people have been overlooked and undercounted in past censuses and that a preponderance of these people tend to vote for Democrats. For that reason, they oppose any efforts to make the census more thorough and accurate.
Now, it seems, Republican leaders are making efforts to sabotage the census before it even gets started. Republicans are sending-out a fundraising form that looks a lot like the official census form. Census officials are afraid that the Republican mailings could make some Americans think that they are responding to the official census and therefore be less likely to respond to the real thing.
House Minority gasbag John Boehner sent out a fundraising mailing which says that recipients were specially chosen to receive "the enclosed CENSUS DOCUMENT containing your 2010 Census of America's Republican Leadership." Copies of the Republican mailings look very much like official census forms. In the upper right hand side of the document I have seen, in large bold capital letters, it says “2010 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CENSUS.” Then below, in tiny lower case letters it says: “Commissioned by the Republican Party.” The rest of the form looks like an official federal government form. It is very different from the usual fundraising type of letter sent-out by political parties.
The similarity of this form to official government census forms is no coincidence. The clear purpose of this deceptive and dishonest mailing is to confuse voters and lower the response to the official census mailings. Republicans seem to think that the fewer the number of people who answer the census, the better it is for them.
A former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, said in a letter sent to RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele that she received a mailer called the "2010 Congressional District Census." It was delivered in an envelope marked with the words, "Do Not Destroy, Official Document." She said that the mailer is "blatantly attempting to interfere with the United States’ 2010 Census of the Population….The design of the mailing envelope and its enclosure is clearly intended to confuse recipients and, in doing so, affect response to the nation’s 23rd decennial census."
Why do Republicans feel it necessary to engage in such deceptive and misleading activity? Is it because they do not trust the strength of their political arguments? Is it because they do not trust the majority of the American people to make the right decisions? They have relied on falsehoods and scare tactics in an attempt to defeat the health care reform bills. Why can’t they let truth prevail and let Democracy do its work?
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution provides for a nationwide census every ten years in order to enumerate the population. The results are used to allocate Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and the funding of governmental programs. Republicans are, at the very least, suspicious of, if not down right hostile to the census.
If the census counted only white, Anglo-Saxon, financially stable, Christian citizens, Republicans would have no problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it also counts minorities, immigrants, the poor, non-Christians, and the homeless. Many Republicans would prefer that these types were not even part of the American population, and feel strongly that they should not be considered part of the electorate. They are aware that many of these people have been overlooked and undercounted in past censuses and that a preponderance of these people tend to vote for Democrats. For that reason, they oppose any efforts to make the census more thorough and accurate.
Now, it seems, Republican leaders are making efforts to sabotage the census before it even gets started. Republicans are sending-out a fundraising form that looks a lot like the official census form. Census officials are afraid that the Republican mailings could make some Americans think that they are responding to the official census and therefore be less likely to respond to the real thing.
House Minority gasbag John Boehner sent out a fundraising mailing which says that recipients were specially chosen to receive "the enclosed CENSUS DOCUMENT containing your 2010 Census of America's Republican Leadership." Copies of the Republican mailings look very much like official census forms. In the upper right hand side of the document I have seen, in large bold capital letters, it says “2010 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CENSUS.” Then below, in tiny lower case letters it says: “Commissioned by the Republican Party.” The rest of the form looks like an official federal government form. It is very different from the usual fundraising type of letter sent-out by political parties.
The similarity of this form to official government census forms is no coincidence. The clear purpose of this deceptive and dishonest mailing is to confuse voters and lower the response to the official census mailings. Republicans seem to think that the fewer the number of people who answer the census, the better it is for them.
A former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, said in a letter sent to RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele that she received a mailer called the "2010 Congressional District Census." It was delivered in an envelope marked with the words, "Do Not Destroy, Official Document." She said that the mailer is "blatantly attempting to interfere with the United States’ 2010 Census of the Population….The design of the mailing envelope and its enclosure is clearly intended to confuse recipients and, in doing so, affect response to the nation’s 23rd decennial census."
Why do Republicans feel it necessary to engage in such deceptive and misleading activity? Is it because they do not trust the strength of their political arguments? Is it because they do not trust the majority of the American people to make the right decisions? They have relied on falsehoods and scare tactics in an attempt to defeat the health care reform bills. Why can’t they let truth prevail and let Democracy do its work?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sarah Palin and the Tea Party
It is emblematic of the profound wisdom emanating from the Tea Party movement that its poster girl and favored presidential candidate is the ill-educated, unqualified, unintelligent quitter whom former McCain aids openly admit was too obtuse to accept coaching for her television appearances and too uneducated to know the answers to questions that any prospective vice president should master. Recent revelations of her husband’s emails show that with his impressive credentials as a snowmobile champion he was the brains behind Sarah’s truncated term as Alaska’s governor.
The State of Alaska recently released nearly 3,000 pages of e-mails that Todd Palin exchanged with state officials. They show a Palin administration in which the governor's husband got involved in judicial and state board appointments, contract negotiations with public employee unions, and other matters that should have been handled by his wife.
The Tea Party Convention was a profit-making enterprise which paid the ex-governor handsomely to be its keynote speaker. Other prospective speakers dropped out because of ethical considerations. Sarah, whose abandonment of the State of Alaska was inspired by a need for cash, had no such problems.
Sarah exposed her penetrating understanding of national economics in her address when she blasted the Obama Administration for "wasteful" stimulus spending, and urged Congress to kill the latest stimulus-style proposal. This attack on the stimulus spending--spending which most congressional Republicans opposed--is a favorite of right-wingers who have no idea of what it would have been like in America without it and haven’t the foggiest idea of what that spending has done to prevent a deep depression.
Palin fed her Convention guests with the usual right-wing Tea Party paranoia about taxes, deficits, and spending. Needless to say, Palin has no understanding of why it is necessary to provide stimulus and incur further deficits during an economic recession. She could find-out if she was to read some of the recent writings of leading economists, but that would be stretching her capacity beyond People Magazine.
There is a wide consensus among leading economists to the effect that the stimulus legislation greatly helped an economy that was in free-fall a year ago. It saved many jobs and created many more jobs. “It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass. Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”
While Dim Sarah condemns the stimulus and inveighs against further stimulus spending, leading economists believe that the stimulus package may not have been enough. They understand that in order to stop a plunging recession, you have to pump money into the system.
What is it with these Tea Party people? They are angry, but they do not seem to know why they are angry. Their amorphous anger seems to be aimed at a poor economy which is the result of the recession caused by the Bush Administration. They seem to resent taxes (“Taxed Enough Already”), even though the Democrats are not going to raise their taxes. They seem to resent large deficits even though the current deficits were caused by Bush’s huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the Bush recession, and two Bush wars. They seem to resent health care reform that will lower their health care costs and make it more available.
I think that the root of Tea Party anger is that their team lost the Super Bowl of politics, the 2008 elections, and that a man who is part African American is now our Commander in Chief.
The State of Alaska recently released nearly 3,000 pages of e-mails that Todd Palin exchanged with state officials. They show a Palin administration in which the governor's husband got involved in judicial and state board appointments, contract negotiations with public employee unions, and other matters that should have been handled by his wife.
The Tea Party Convention was a profit-making enterprise which paid the ex-governor handsomely to be its keynote speaker. Other prospective speakers dropped out because of ethical considerations. Sarah, whose abandonment of the State of Alaska was inspired by a need for cash, had no such problems.
Sarah exposed her penetrating understanding of national economics in her address when she blasted the Obama Administration for "wasteful" stimulus spending, and urged Congress to kill the latest stimulus-style proposal. This attack on the stimulus spending--spending which most congressional Republicans opposed--is a favorite of right-wingers who have no idea of what it would have been like in America without it and haven’t the foggiest idea of what that spending has done to prevent a deep depression.
Palin fed her Convention guests with the usual right-wing Tea Party paranoia about taxes, deficits, and spending. Needless to say, Palin has no understanding of why it is necessary to provide stimulus and incur further deficits during an economic recession. She could find-out if she was to read some of the recent writings of leading economists, but that would be stretching her capacity beyond People Magazine.
There is a wide consensus among leading economists to the effect that the stimulus legislation greatly helped an economy that was in free-fall a year ago. It saved many jobs and created many more jobs. “It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass. Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”
While Dim Sarah condemns the stimulus and inveighs against further stimulus spending, leading economists believe that the stimulus package may not have been enough. They understand that in order to stop a plunging recession, you have to pump money into the system.
What is it with these Tea Party people? They are angry, but they do not seem to know why they are angry. Their amorphous anger seems to be aimed at a poor economy which is the result of the recession caused by the Bush Administration. They seem to resent taxes (“Taxed Enough Already”), even though the Democrats are not going to raise their taxes. They seem to resent large deficits even though the current deficits were caused by Bush’s huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the Bush recession, and two Bush wars. They seem to resent health care reform that will lower their health care costs and make it more available.
I think that the root of Tea Party anger is that their team lost the Super Bowl of politics, the 2008 elections, and that a man who is part African American is now our Commander in Chief.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Limited Government and the Poor
One constantly hears the claim by conservatives that the real issue between conservatives and liberals is the size and scope of government. Conservatives never tire of repeating the claim that they want smaller government, and that the present size of government is far beyond anything envisioned or authorized by the Constitution. They assert that the growth of government threatens their freedom and way of life. Nonsense! What they object to is taxes and the use of government funds to help the poor, especially minorities.
The primary source of conflict between liberals and conservatives has always been the issue of how to deal with the poor. Liberals have always supported and conservatives have always opposed governmental policies that provide for the amelioration of poverty through jobs, minimum wages, welfare, social security, health care, housing, and tax relief. Liberals look upon such legislation as humane justice. Conservatives see such programs as the redistribution of wealth.
If government programs constitute redistribution of wealth, why aren’t the poor people getting wealthy? A really good program redistributing wealth would, at the very least, provide every poor person with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why do poor people go on being poor, living in wretched housing conditions, and doing without food, and clothing?
In order for the government to provide welfare, Medicaid, housing programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits, jobs programs, and other relief for poor people, there have to be a number of governments departments administering such aid. This is what conservatives object to; the payment of taxes necessary to support those departments.
Conservatives do not oppose the expansion of governmental power or the expenditure of governmental funds for programs they favor. They approve of the use of taxes to augment military power and wage war, subsidize oil and gas companies in the search for fossil fuels, and enforce laws against illegal immigration, abortion, pornography, and the drug trade.
To many conservatives, poor people, especially minority people, are not deserving of any aid from the government. They believe that such people are lazy, ignorant, and inferior. Their attitude is best reflected in the remarks of the South Carolina Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer, who recently said: “My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that." In other words, poor and minority people are like animals; all they are good for is eating and breeding.
Such thinking reveals a cold-hearted lack of compassion. Some people who share these beliefs call themselves “Christians.” Nothing could be more ironic. The Bible tells us that the man they worship as the Son of God was born poor and spent his life on earth wandering among, preaching to, and blessing the poor. He taught his followers how to see the face of God in the poorest and most wretched people. I wonder if Andre Bauer ever read these words: “...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink...as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:35-40). I wonder why it is too much for the Andre Bauers of this world that some of their taxes are used to help the poor?
Private charity is simply not enough to provide for many of the needs of the poor. The provision of such necessities is more than a moral good. It benefits the nation and all of the people. It ennobles us and makes us a better people. It makes our nation stronger, safer, and happier.
The primary source of conflict between liberals and conservatives has always been the issue of how to deal with the poor. Liberals have always supported and conservatives have always opposed governmental policies that provide for the amelioration of poverty through jobs, minimum wages, welfare, social security, health care, housing, and tax relief. Liberals look upon such legislation as humane justice. Conservatives see such programs as the redistribution of wealth.
If government programs constitute redistribution of wealth, why aren’t the poor people getting wealthy? A really good program redistributing wealth would, at the very least, provide every poor person with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why do poor people go on being poor, living in wretched housing conditions, and doing without food, and clothing?
In order for the government to provide welfare, Medicaid, housing programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits, jobs programs, and other relief for poor people, there have to be a number of governments departments administering such aid. This is what conservatives object to; the payment of taxes necessary to support those departments.
Conservatives do not oppose the expansion of governmental power or the expenditure of governmental funds for programs they favor. They approve of the use of taxes to augment military power and wage war, subsidize oil and gas companies in the search for fossil fuels, and enforce laws against illegal immigration, abortion, pornography, and the drug trade.
To many conservatives, poor people, especially minority people, are not deserving of any aid from the government. They believe that such people are lazy, ignorant, and inferior. Their attitude is best reflected in the remarks of the South Carolina Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer, who recently said: “My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that." In other words, poor and minority people are like animals; all they are good for is eating and breeding.
Such thinking reveals a cold-hearted lack of compassion. Some people who share these beliefs call themselves “Christians.” Nothing could be more ironic. The Bible tells us that the man they worship as the Son of God was born poor and spent his life on earth wandering among, preaching to, and blessing the poor. He taught his followers how to see the face of God in the poorest and most wretched people. I wonder if Andre Bauer ever read these words: “...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink...as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:35-40). I wonder why it is too much for the Andre Bauers of this world that some of their taxes are used to help the poor?
Private charity is simply not enough to provide for many of the needs of the poor. The provision of such necessities is more than a moral good. It benefits the nation and all of the people. It ennobles us and makes us a better people. It makes our nation stronger, safer, and happier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
