About That Tax Plan

I've been trying to keep up with the "discussion" of the much-ballyhooed GOP Tax Plan. To say that there is spin from the left and spin from the right doesn't do justice to the word. They don't make a stone big enough for all the blarney we have been hearing from both sides!

The favored name for the plan is the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" -- because who doesn't like the idea of less taxes and more jobs? But, due in part to the haste with which said bill has been hacked together and pushed through our fair Congress, the actual name of the legislation is "To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Titles II and V of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018." 

Kind of warms your heart, doesn't it?

I'm not going to delve into the rhetoric of whether this legislation will actually provide any jobs -- there are statistics from multiple perspectives to demonstrate that it will, that it won't, and that it might. Take your pick. You know what they* say about statistics, right?

* Mark Twain popularized a saying, attributed to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: 

"There are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

But in trying to figure out just who will pay less taxes and who will not, I chose to boil it down to the two factors that most middle-income earners will pay attention to: the personal exemption and the standard deduction.

Ever since I have began paying income taxes (at the age of 15, with my first job at the IGA grocery store in my hometown of Martin, TN), Americans have been allowed to "exempt" from their income -- in other words, take it right off the top -- a certain amount of the money they earned based on the number of people in their household.

As a young person, my household was basically me, and in 1973, I was able to eliminate the first $750 I earned bagging groceries from any federal income tax. At $1.65 an hour, that allowed me to work for 454 hours without any taxes. That pretty much covered me back in those days, so I got a sweet deal!

On top of that, we were all allowed a standard deduction of $1,300 off of any income taxes owed. So, I was rocking and rolling with the ability to earn up to $8,667 essentially tax-free (I did get to learn about Social Security and Medicare taxes via my weekly paystub!)

If I had been married with a couple of kids (as lots of folks were in 1973), my personal exemptions would have risen to $3,000 (remember, right off the top!) and I could have chosen either to take the standard deduction for my household, or I could have "itemized" my deductions if they added up to a larger sum. 

Being as the average annual income in the US in 1973 was $7,580, it was all-in-all a pretty good deal!

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Let us fast-forward to nearly Christmas time in the year 2017; our Representatives and Senators are about to pass the aforementioned "Law with an Abominably Long Name" in order to give us some tax relief. The average wage in America is somewhere around $48,600. How does a 15-year old grocery clerk and a family of four come out under this whole deal?

Well, for starters: you can kiss that personal exemption thing goodbye! For 2017, the personal exemption (which was $750 in 1973, remember) was $4,150. So, our family of four was able to take $16,600 of income right off the top -- no taxes for you! The young grocery clerk got the $4,150. 

Not anymore!

Oh, but you get to DOUBLE your standard deduction! This is a move the Congress actually endorses, as they wish to entice income-earners away from those pesky itemized deductions (most of which will be eliminated anyway for 2018.) Our grocery clerk who was able to deduct $6,350 last year will get to deduct $12,000 this year. And the family will get to deduct $24,000 -- compared to last year's $12,700.

Did we say DOUBLE your deduction? Well, we didn't mean that it would actually DOUBLE. Either that, or we flunked third-grade math.

Anyhow, my grocery clerk may come out pretty good (just as I did back in '73) -- but my next-door neighbors with two kids are kind of getting screwed (or so it seems to me.) They get to swap $16,600 in exemptions for an extra $11,300 in deductions. As a result, they will pay more taxes in 2018 than they did in 2017. 

Can I hear you cheering, Middle America?

Now, there has also been a lot of talk about lowering the tax brackets on income. It's true that every single tax bracket for 2018 will see a reduction in the percentage of income owed for taxes. Most categories will see reductions of 2-3% (with the exception of those who earn between $157,500 and $400,000 as individuals -- they only get a break of 1%)

But, with the wily shift in how your income is counted, you will pay a smaller percentage on a greater amount of the cash you use to feed your family. Especially if your income is earned on your job, rather than received from your investments. (Oh, boy -- that's a whole other blog post!!)

So, to paraphrase a great writer from many years ago: "As for me and my house, we think this whole thing smells a bit like week-old fish heads."

Arlo Guthrie and the Disappearing Railroad Blues

Not really going to wax politic today -- there's enough of that going around lately.

But, 'tis the season for wondering just exactly what direction our beloved America is going to take shortly after the New Year dawns and a new President is sworn in. "The people have spoken" and the consensus is in: change is in the air. 

And not the kind that was paired so poetically with hope a mere eight years ago under the aegis of a new President riding his own wave of populism. Oh, no, there will be none of that. This change has swelled the river banks of rage and unrest and has kicked in the teeth of every pundit and pollster across our great land, ushering in the once-unthinkable man of the people -- the one who promises that America will, indeed, be great again.

Whilst pondering on this day after Thanksgiving -- and, by the way, I am immensely thankful for the blessings I have received; those of family and friends, generally good health, a job that supports me and allows me to contribute modestly to the general welfare of those around me -- I happened to begin humming a few lines from the Arlo Guthrie song, The City of New Orleans. (Actually, Arlo only covered the song; it was written by Steve Goodman.)

But, I digress...

The rousing chorus is what popped into my head:

Good morning, America, how are you?Say, don't you know me? I'm your native sonI'm the train they call the City Of New OrleansI'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done

I am connected to this song for a number of reasons. I like the folk/protest feel, the gritty, bluesy, sing-it-like-it-is character. I like the memories of the Illinois Central Railroad, which ran right smack dab through the middle of my hometown, giving rise to the relatively poor excuse of a public park we played in when we were kids (we didn't care -- we just though the monkey bars were cool!)

But the route elicited in the song and on the railways, from Kankakee through Memphis, Tennessee and on down to 'Nawlins, is something of a metaphor for our country and the hard times that have befallen us. The old, grey railroad ain't what she used to be -- to borrow another musical metaphor. And, one gets the gut-level feeling, neither is America.

Hence, the results of our General Election just past.

Goodman writes and Guthrie sings:

But, all the towns and people seem to fade into a bad dream
And the steel rail still ain't heard the news
The conductor sings his songs again - the passengers will please refrain
This train got the disappearing railroad blues

I wonder which way America is headed. I hope and pray for the best, not so much for me and my generation, but for my children and my grandchildren, and their children and so on.

And, mothers with their babes asleep rocking to the gentle beat

The train rolls on. The nation rolls on.

But, where?

There's No Stifling Archie Bunker

Like lots of other folks, I’ve tried my best to understand the rise of Donald Trump and his rhetoric-inflected political style. A number of sources have been offered – variously blaming different stripes of liberalism (“political correctness”) or conservatism (“Fox News.”) I suppose you can pick your poison.

World leaders like der Führer (Adolf Hitler) and Il Duce (Benito Mussolini) have come to the minds of many with long-enough memories to pull up WWII. As a child of the 1970’s, a more populist (if no less strident) personality has risen from the bell-bottomed well of my mind: Archie Bunker. Yes, he of All in the Family fame.

Controversial and extremely popular, the 1970's sitcom was written and produced by Norman Lear – one of the media/elite/liberals of the day. Archie, as the lead character, was lifted up and lambasted as a racially-insensitive, popular-culture-bashing, equal opportunity bigot. It was obvious, from the context of the show, that Archie was wrong on so many fronts: his opinions of women, his prejudices against every race but his own (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, of course,) his definite distrust of big government, and his especially-escalated disdain for “fruitcakes” – a leading light opposing homosexuality, if you will.

Yet, Archie loved America and, in truth, his family – so all was forgiven in the end. 

He was a lovable lout of a very different sort than had ever been seen on American television. (On a side note, I remember my pastor lamenting from the pulpit: “This new show called All in the Family sure seems to be awfully popular. Well, I’ll tell you – it’s not all in my family!” He was not a fan.)

Fast forward 40+ years, and Archie Bunker has hit the big time. Rather, Donald Trump has struck a chord with heir-apparent Archie Bunkers all over America. What was once intended as an epic parody of an untenable worldview has now become a whole other sort of fashionable.

Nowhere is the mindset on clearer display than the lyrics to the show’s theme song, Those Were the Days, written for the producers by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse.

Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.
And you knew who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

Nostalgia is a powerful force, whether it is for a past that is based in reality and truth – or, whether it is a hopeful vision of “what should have been.” Everybody who tuned in from 1971-1976 (when All in the Family was the #1 show in America) knew that Archie’s barbed witticisms and slanted perceptions were based on the latter. Nobody really wanted Herbert Hoover for president again. (Hoover’s policies were widely seen as aggravating what came to be known as The Great Depression, 1929-40.)

But now, it seems, Archie’s opinions – once the domain of satire – have come full circle and risen to the level of a movement -- all in the name of “making America great again” – supposedly by restoring a set of lost values that are difficult to pin down in actuality. But, Trump promises that he can somehow make them happen.

The appeal of his message is visceral; rationality and feasibility do not matter. Trump has managed to hit all the right notes in capturing the essence of the All in the Family closing theme (from a rarely heard second verse of the show’s song):

People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days….

I don't know just what went wrong. [But] those were the days.

Archie’s long-suffering wife, Edith, was often commanded by Archie, upon offering her own (often contrary) opinion: “Stifle yourself, Edith!”

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. 

The Lost Art of Controversy

On the one hand, it seems that there is no shortage of controversy in the world in which we live. One might well posit that "people argue all the time."

But, on the other hand (as it were) -- there is a tremendous dearth of what was once a treasured and well-practiced art known as "controversy." By this, I mean a "dispute, argument, or debate, especially one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and especially one carried on in public or in the press." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003)

Alas, there was a time when arguments could be conducted in both a passionate AND a rational manner. Those "arguments" were seen as a valid part of societal discourse. To be biblical about it, as Proverbs 27:17 says: "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

The purpose of a controversy was to allow both sides of a point under discussion to be heard in fairness, openness, and with a basic respect for differing opinions. The root meaning of the word is "to turn to the opposite." 

I have my say, then we turn and listen while you have your say, and vice versa until we have finished. And then people make up their minds and we go on about cobbling a common life together. Controversy was not a bad thing -- it was an expected and valued part of social discourse.

But it seems that a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century: we lost our ability to have a good argument.

Now, most social issues are projected in terms of merely who is "right" and who is "wrong," with neither side willing to give the other a respectful hearing. We live in an era when discourse has given way to boycotts, petitions, demonstrations and shouting matches.

Would the oft-cited (but rarely listened-to) "founding fathers" of our great nation even recognize us?

Men (and, yes, it was the men in those days) like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others hammered out the great documents of American freedom in vivid controversies where every point mattered, every viewpoint was heard, and consensus was won by the sweat of honest disputation and discussion.

I daresay there wasn't a "sound bite" or a "talking point" to be heard in Independence Hall in 1776. Have our attention spans become so short that our politicians truly believe that our votes can be earned on the basis of phrases such as "You didn't build that..." or "He's not the solution, he's the problem?"

God help us all if that is true! With public discussions like that, we are bound to continue getting what we deserve in our nation's capital and our 50 statehouses.

I for one am determined to find men and women of good will and differing opinions with whom I can engage in a good, old-fashioned "controversy" -- (not to be confused with a good old-fashioned piano party, by the way!)

Believe what you choose to believe -- stand up for your beliefs -- do not be afraid to challenge others whose beliefs are different from your own.

But, please...please...please...be thoughtful in what you say, and respectful in the way that you listen.

We'll all be better off for it.

A Game of Chicken

That Dan Cathy sure can make a chicken sandwich.

Well, I doubt that Dan has actually put a piece of poultry between two buns in quite a while, but the heir to the chicken restaurant empire founded by his father, Truett Cathy, has been much in the news lately over his spicy comments defending his understanding of traditional marriage.

Claiming that he is "guilty as charged" when asked about supporting "the traditional family," Cathy has gone on to use ever more blatant language about just what -- in his mind (I started to say "bird brain," but thought better of it) -- traditional family and its concomitant, "biblical marriage,"  actually means.

To be precise, Mr. Cathy had this to say in a widely-quoted radio interview:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

He was speaking, of course, in reference to those who support or are in favor of allowing "gay marriage."

The former Baptist-preacher-turned-governor-turned-radio-host-turned-TV-celebrity-turned-perennial-presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee wasted no time in entering the ensuing political-cultural fray, admonishing thousands (or perhaps millions?) of his fellow conservatives to support Chick-Fil-A, the restaurant whose profits allow Mr. Cathy access to such a public venue for his opinions. Grabbing a quick chick has now become a political statement.

(Ya' ever notice how many run-of-the-mill guys and gals have similar, if not stronger, sentiments -- but nobody ever pays any attention to them because they don't donate millions to political causes?)


Of course, boycotts from the other side of the fence have been proposed, as well, with many other thousands (or perhaps millions?) vowing never to eat another "Chik'n" sandwich at the six-day-a-week restaurants -- ever.

And, even though it mixes the metaphors horrendously to say so -- ain't this a fine kettle of fish?

Now we have thousands upon thousands (or perhaps millions upon millions?) of people shouting at one another across yet another cultural divide in America -- this one brought on by a supposed debate over what's in the Bible and what's not.

And that's where we get to the interesting thing, at least for me, as a relatively serious Bible student for the last 40 years or so. Go to any Bible concordance or biblical internet search engine and look up the word, "marriage," and you'll get a fairly mind-blowing array of biblical verses that mention the subject in some way. (There are approximately 47 of them, depending on the translation that you prefer to read.)

Included in these various "biblical definitions" of marriage are these ideas:

• If you are a young man in love with a girl who has an older sister, you have to marry the older sister first -- THEN, you can marry your true love. (Genesis Genesis 29:25-27)
• If you have married a wife and, after you have slept with her, you "dislike" her (these rules were a long time before Facebook, by the way!) -- you can call a town meeting, accuse her of whoredom, put her on trial and -- if you are able to prove your case -- ditch her to try another wife that might suit you better. (Deuteronomy 22:13 ff)
• Brides were sometimes won in battle -- sort of a recruiting prize for keeping the enrollment up (so to speak) in the all-volunteer army. (Joshua 15:15-17)
• In one of the more bizarre "biblical marriages" on record, the great King David of Israel was compelled by his would-be father-in-law, Saul, to kill 200 enemy soldiers and cut off their foreskins as a "bridal price." Ouch!
• There were the escapades of Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel, who had multiple wives (and unmarried consorts, known as "concubines") in order to produce the gaggle of 12 sons that became known as "the children of Israel." (Genesis 29:13ff)
• And, of course, most famously for Christians -- we have the story of Joseph and Mary, who were the parents of Jesus -- who was actually conceived by Mary before she was married and had fulfilled her marital duties with Joseph. (Can't you just see Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" pursing her lips over that one?) (Matthew 1:24-25)

Now, I would kind of like for Mr. Cathy -- and Gov. Huckabee, or Tony Perkins, or any of the other voices crying in the societal wilderness -- to tell me just exactly WHICH "biblical definition" of marriage they are defending.

Mr. Cathy claims that God has clearly designed marriage and given it to us as a human institution, devoid of cultural customs and in a supposed now-and-forever format that should not -- indeed, can not -- ever be changed by mere "laws."

I've performed scores of weddings -- all of them between one man and one woman, all of them "sanctioned" by both the church and society. But I am quite confused by all the talk of THE "biblical definition" of marriage and the manner in which it, supposedly, bestows the right of some segments of society to infringe upon the rights of other segments of society.

I completely respect the right of Dan Cathy to spout whatever belief or moral imperative that he wishes to spout; I do not have a problem with the number of millions of dollars he wishes to give to political organizations, public foundations, charities or churches of his choice. The more the better.

But I wish he'd back off a bit on the "biblical" rhetoric and be a little more God-fearing himself when it comes to speaking definitively for the Almighty. Some things just aren't as clear-cut as we might like to make them.

Fries with that, anyone?

Elegy for a Lost Breed

They always say (whoever "they" are) that if you want to solve a mystery, follow the money.

Like many other fans of intercollegiate athletics, I have for some time pondered the uncomfortable mystery of the effects of big-time money on the big-time (and not-so-big) sports programs that I love to follow. To wit, the report in today's (05/15/2012) USA Today comparing life at the "elite" Division 1 programs like the Universities of Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oregon -- and even my beloved Tennessee -- with the "bottom feeders" at schools like Mississippi Valley State, North Carolina-Asheville, and Maryland-Eastern Shores.

We have become inured -- other than the occasional pretend "gripe" about ticket prices-- to the big budgets and big payments (most of them legal) at the really big schools and their sports programs. As the crack staff at USAT remind us, multi-million dollar contracts for the head coaches of revenue-producing sports (read football, in most instances) are a matter of fact.

 Mack Brown, coach of the Longhorns at UT (the school with the really ugly orange uniforms) and the current king of the contracts amongst Division 1 coaches, earns $5,000,000 each year -- win, lose, or draw. As Coach Brown was quoted as saying, "I think that when we make it, we have a right to spend it. That's the way America is."

Indeed.

But, that horse has done left the barn, as we say, and my issue is not really with the Mack Browns, the Nick Sabans, and the Urban Meyers of the intercollegiate world. What really struck me was just how pervasive the attitude of entitlement has become throughout the coaching ranks these days.

Witness the comments of Sean Woods, former head coach at the aforementioned Mississippi Valley State University. (Coach Woods just accepted a new job at Morehead State University -- whose athletic budget is twice the size of MVSU's -- as is, presumably, the coach's contract.)

Discussing the challenges of coaching at the "bottom levels" of the the NCAA, the coach cited the difficulty he had of having to deal with "kids' scholarship information, dorms, food, anything you can think of." Okay, a secretarial staff is one thing; certainly, it would be nice to have a little more assistance. But, then came the clincher:

"My assistants have to teach to supplement their income."

Excuse me? Are we not referring to higher education here? What do you mean your assistants have to teach?

I was immediately reminded of the college coaches I knew when I was growing up -- next door to one of those "bottom rung" schools, the University of Tennessee at Martin.

My best friends were the sons of head basketball coach Floyd Burdette; I lived across the backyard from baseball coach Vincent Vaughn; I regularly encountered (through their children, my classmates -- and in the community) football coaches Robert Carroll, Grover Page, Ross (Buster) Elder, and Jack Beeler. I even got to spend some time with Nadine Gearin, the coach and mentor of the winningest collegiate basketball coach of all time, Pat Head Summit.

To my knowledge, every single one of these men and women taught regular academic loads in the classroom every single semester. It was part of the job...and they were happy and proud to do it!

After moving to Gainesville, Florida, I met Coach Dave Fuller (who was a member of the congregation that I serve as pastor.) Coach Fuller passed away a couple of years ago -- as have most of those on this list -- and I had the chance to learn a few things about him preparing for his funeral service.

Hired to coach baseball and teach physical education at the University of Florida, Coach Fuller also did a couple of other things to "supplement" his income. He cleaned up the gymnasium after hours, where he was given permission to allow his children to shower so they could save money at home. He helped the football program as a part-time recruiter, once signing an underweight defensive end named Jack Youngblood who went on to become an All-American and NFL Hall of Famer.

Oh, and besides carrying his full-time load in the classroom, he also became the all-time winningest coach in the history of the Gator baseball program.

Perhaps Coach Woods can be forgiven; after all, he came through as a fairly pampered player in a big-time basketball program. (Perhaps you've heard of them: The University of Kentucky Wildcats.) He probably thinks that the atmosphere in Rupp Arena is "normal."

But I can't help but wonder if the true coaching greats -- like those mentioned above -- aren't shaking their collective heads at a game -- and a system -- gone awry. It used to be about men and women who were teachers first, instructing boys and girls who were students first, in games that simulated the larger and more important game of life.

Coaches, thanks; we were happy that we knew ye when.

Hosanna-Tabor, Viagra, and A Woman's Right to Choose

 A GENTLE WARNING: This discussion contains ideas and issues that some of my tender readers might find objectionable. I'd probably have to rate it PG-13. Just so you know... :)

So, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled that a small Lutheran school in Michigan has the right to discriminate against its disabled employees, as long as they can be classified as "ministers" (wink-wink.) If you haven't heard of Hosanna-Tabor, you can catch up here.

The case is being widely hailed as a victory for "religious freedom" and the First Amendment. Methinks the celebration is both premature and ill-advised.

Oddly, just days after the SCOTUS decision, the news has turned to a decision by President Obama's administration to deny exemptions from federal law for religiously-affiliated institutions (such as universities and hospitals) whose practice it is to deny employees prescription drug coverage that includes contraceptives for women.

Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has clarified that churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice. (see article here)

But the "connection" of churches and houses of worship to the institutions that they help to sponsor (like the Hosanna-Tabor school, for instance,) does not qualify them to withhold the coverage from their more "secular" employees.

Of course, all manner of hell is breaking loose in the dioceses and other seats of ecclesiastical power across America. We can be sure that challenges are forthcoming, particularly given the SCOTUS ruling with regard to Hosanna-Tabor.

The thing that strikes me as particularly vexing with this whole situation is the fact that these same potentates of priestly piety most likely would NEVER think of excluding coverage for a man's Viagra® prescription on moral grounds. That would violate some sort of right to access, I suppose, and would just be a real downer for the dudes!

So a man can be reimbursed to get it up and impregnate the companion of his choice -- but that same companion cannot be reimbursed in order to exercise control over her own body and prevent conception against her will.

What's wrong with this picture, people?

Brother, Can You Spare a ... Diploma?

"Those wascally Wepublicans," as Elmer Fudd might intone.

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed HR 3630, a bill extending President Barack Obama's 2 percent payroll tax cut. The tax cut, which was set to expire on January 1, will save the average American family an estimated $1,000 next year. Good news in a continuing economically difficult climate, right?

Not so fast, my paycheck-challenged little friend!

Apparently, the wise men and women on Capitol Hill also want to help reduce the number of unemployed Americans with a couple of other choice tidbits included in the bill: unemployment insurance benefits, which currently provide for up to 99 weeks of support, will be slashed by about 40% . After all, they don't want you laying around, slacking on the job search thing.

And, since you must be ignorant if you don't have a job, you will also now be required to have a high school diploma or a GED in order to get the cash. So if you're a credit or two short, better enroll in some night school courses while you have no way to support your family!

Oh, and one more thing -- you'll need to find time to pee in a cup in between job interviews and Algebra One; there will be mandatory drug testing to be sure "that people who are receiving these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase drugs." (A quote from House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif. -- I promise, I'm not making this up!)

Many Republicans -- and a few Democrats seeking to pander to the more conservative elements of that party -- are fond of platitudes like "we believe a paycheck is better than an unemployment check." Another quote, this one from House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Okay, most of us are with you on that one, Dave. But take a minute and just do the math (I'm assuming here that the Congressmen have at least a GED.)

As another Republican, Mark Zandi -- an economic adviser to John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign -- has estimated, each dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits generates $1.61 in economic growth. Meanwhile, according to an analysis from the National Employment Law Project (NELP), the Republicans' bill would result in $22 billion in lost economic growth and cost at least 140,000 jobs next year.

Americans are not -- by and large -- stupid, shiftless and just waiting for the check in the mail so they can get stoned. The most recent data from the Bureau on Labor Statistics shows 6.9 million people receiving unemployment insurance (out of a total 14 million without work) versus 3.4 million job openings in September.

To borrow a line from another famous cartoon character, James Carville: It's the jobs, stupid!

Ideological idiocy aside, how do you people sleep at night offering stuff like this in the name of helping hard-hit Americans through these tough economic times?

A couple of helpful articles (and sources for the above stats and quotes):  Mother Jones and The Hill

D is for Democrat...and Disappointed

As my childhood hero, Popeye, used to say: "That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!"

I suppose that, with the looming advent of 2012 -- and not much actual faith in the December 21 Mayan deadline for the ending of the age -- I'm going to have to make a decision about the presidential election.

Along with many other Democrats in America, you can color me "depressed, disappointed and disillusioned." Whatever euphoria may have briefly arisen in 2008 seems to have dissipated like so much swamp gas in the bayou. (Along with, evidently, any hope that BP and the Feds were actually going to do anything to "make things right" along the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of the Deep Throat...I mean,  Deepwater oil disaster.)

Actually, I am not registered with any political party here in my "home" state of Florida. I am staunchly and fiercely independent in my political views. The son of a fervent Goldwater Republican, it is sad to see what the GOP of my father's generation has become. Their agenda seems to me to be anything but Grand these days.

Lacking any true option for a viable independent candidate, that leaves the Democrats. I'll go ahead and confess, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton -- and I thought Slick Willy did a pretty decent job. Will he have a place in the pantheon of "great presidents" in US history? Doubt it. But judging by the quality of his successors, he sure looks better all the time!

I read a nice little opinion piece today by Canadian journalist Bogdan Kipling, who writes about America's political scene from no less a lofty peak than our nation's capital. (Reminds me of a popular bumper sticker from my youth, seen plastered on a toilet tank: "Flush Twice -- It's a Long Way to Washington!")

In his essay, Run, Hillary, Run, Mr. Kipling was addressing the perplexing dilemma facing many Democrats for 2012...should the donkeys run somebody besides President Obama -- most likely Hillary Clinton -- if they hope to derail whichever Republican candidate emerges from the goof-fest that is their primary season?

Mr. Kipling writes:

Increasingly the question of whether President Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination is surfacing among disgruntled Democrats worried about a solid Republican victory next fall. They’re right to be concerned: the crises facing the United States and the world deserve better than Obama’s permanent floating re-election campaign....

Obama’s priorities seem to be governed more by his re-election timetable than the demands of the national interest and reflective responses to the galloping changes in the global order. Contrary to mainstream opinion, Obama is a mediocre politician. Were it not so, surely he would have known that people get wise to polished repetitive, but empty speeches — and know the difference between bread and butter now and pie in the sky later.  (full article text here)

I'm no Obama-hater; I have plenty of friends who can fulfill that role for me. I begrudgingly granted him my vote after his emergence in the 2008 campaign; I did (fleetingly) dare to hope for a change in the way Washington was working. I've tried to be supportive of the office, the man and the policies the current administration has enacted.

But I think I'm with Mr. Kipling on this one: "the Democratic Party should bite the bullet and jettison the nation’s one-term Senate orator and try to elect the nation’s first woman president."

I'm pretty sure he ain't talking about Michele Bachmann, by the way.

To a Southerner, "Fried" is How You Know You're Home

I came home to visit my momma this week.

Well, "home" is kind of a relative word (no pun intended.) By that, I mean that I don't get to go to the place where I actually grew up anymore. Life's circumstances have dictated that my mom no longer lives in my home town, and is no longer married to my dad. After I was blessed with a wonderful childhood with both of my loving parents, my father passed away at the all-too-young age of 55. That number is staring me in the face, a fact that I consider more often than I'd like to admit.

But, anyhow, my mom is an amazing lady and has been fortunate to have been married to an equally amazing gentleman for the past 19 years -- their house is as close as I get to coming "home" these days, and it's a good place to be.

We have spent some time doing important things -- like sitting down with old family pictures and talking about who was from where, who married who, what it was like growing up on the farm with brothers and cousins and such. I suppose it's those upcoming 55 years that cause me to long for such connections.

I learned this week what a beautiful woman my great-grandmother Brown was. I also learned a lot more about the hell-bent adventures of my mother's cousin, "Bear"...all I can say is, I wish I'd a knowed him.

I have relaxed out here on the farm; Mr. Larry, as my mom's husband is known to my family, has cattle and a great big garden (out of which we enjoy the delicious bounty when the vegetables start coming in.)

It's quiet in that country kind of way that you just have to experience to understand. The couch in the big family room sleeps as good as any place I have ever laid my head -- so I've laid it there for a nap every afternoon.

Tonight, we sat down at the table and, I kid you not...I thought I had died and gone to heaven. Before me was spread a veritable feast of my favorite foods. Fried pork tenderloin, fried potatoes and onions, white beans (not fried, but slow-cooked in a pot,) cole slaw, fresh tomatoes, cornbread and "iced tea." (I never knew there was any other kind, but I now add the "iced" descriptor for all my Yankee friends.)

Dadgum, it was good!

I knew right then and there that I felt as at home as I was ever going to feel. That thought was kind of trickling around in the back of my mind while I made my nightly foray onto Facebook, where I posted the contents of the supper table for all to behold.

One of my friends responded by saying, " You know, I'm full from supper.... But reading the word 'fried' twice in one sentence made my stomach growl." 

That's when it hit me; it has everything to do with the culinary background of so much of what it means to me to go "home."

To a Southerner, "fried" is how you know you're home. We love to eat, because so much of what we eat symbolizes the way we love.

Our fondest times and grandest celebrations are marked by food; even when folks are in trouble, the first impulse of most Southern women to this day is, "I need to take them something to eat."

Nobody ever had to tell us we were eating "comfort food" when I was growing up -- we automatically knew we were comforted every time we sat at the table (and we did sit at the table back in those days!)

I love my mom and the rest of my family; we make every effort to sit down and eat together every chance we get. I'll admit that there is much less fried food on the dinner plate these days, and that's probably good in its own way.

But, every once in a while, it sure is good to go "home" -- cholesterol be damned!

Ladies, Start Your Engines (and Buy Your Policies!)

Some days, I am just ashamed.

The debate over abortion, at a fever pitch since the epic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, finds many people of good will and sincere convictions on opposite sides of the struggle.

Opponents of the current law of the land -- which guarantees women safe access to medical services regarding termination of their pregnancies -- speak justifiably and passionately about protecting the rights of unborn children. Supporters of the law speak just as passionately about the rights a woman has to the use of her own body. Among the terms used to describe these two points-of-view, the most common seem to be "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

One of the most intense points of conflict in the whole discussion revolves around the "special circumstances" of rape and incest. Should a woman be required to carry to term a child that was produced by an act of violence or familial abuse?

"Pro-lifers" vary on their response to this question, but the most avid among them assert that there is never an instance in which a woman and/or her medical caregivers should terminate a pregnancy. This position almost always carries with it some form of injunction invoking the name of God and phrases such as, "All life is precious."

Personally, I find compelling arguments on both sides of this debate -- though I must admit that I cannot truly understand forcing a woman to bear a child produced by such an act of aggression and evil. Two wrongs still don't make a right, even when egg meets sperm.

But a true low, in my opinion, was reached this week in the Kansas state legislature, where one of the nation's most restrictive abortion bills was passed and sent to the desk of Gov. Sam Brownback for his signature. I wholeheartedly support the right of the citizens of Kansas, through their elected representatives, to pass such legislation.

After all, if I were a citizen of Kansas and I didn't like it, I could move somewhere else, right?

Rather, it is an exchange from the floor of the Kansas House of Representatives, reported by the Associated Press (read the story here) that has turned my stomach and caused me to hang my head lower than Tom Dooley's.

Here are the words of Reps. Barbara Bollier and Pete DeGraaf:

Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.


During the House's debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"

Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?" 

DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car." 

"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

DeGraaf is not only an avid pro-life supporter, he is reportedly an associate pastor at a Kansas church. I wonder if he will preach a sermon soon entitled, "Planning Ahead for Life's Little Uncertainties -- LIKE RAPE!"

May God have mercy on the victims of sexual conquest and abuse in all places and at all times.

Is Jesus Coming Again On May 21?

I saw the billboard on a westward swing through Phoenix, Arizona in March: "Jesus is Coming on May 21, 2011."

Simple. Direct. To the Point. Good ad, I guess...

I remember thinking, "Who in the heck paid for that?" closely followed by, "They must be nuts!" As the date is now about 48 hours from the time I am sitting down to write this, I guess I'm stopping to examine that second part. What if the guy behind all of this isn't nuts?

Harold Camping is 89 years old, a retired engineer (the mathematical kind, not the kind that drives trains.) At the tender young age of 74, he predicted that Jesus would come again on September 27, 1994 --and caused a fair amount of stir as hundreds of people sold their belongings and traveled to California to join him in waiting for the big event. The Messiah was a no-show, and Camping said, "Apparently, that was incorrect."

The man has a gift for cutting to the chase.     (read the coverage from 1994 here, if you'd like)

Since 1958, Mr. Camping has been building a network of radio stations around the world under the rubric of Family Radio. He's done a pretty good job, as they have an estimated worth today of around $166 million. I have no idea how much cash flows through their coffers, but they bill themselves as "listener supported."

A quick visit to their website (familyradio.com) delivers a sort of "God Housekeeping Seal of Approval" on the May 21, 2011 prediction. "The Bible Guarantees It" -- thus saith Brother Camping.

Now, as end-of-the-world prophets go, Mr. Camping seems to be fairly gentle and his followers strike me as nothing but sincere, dedicated and heart-felt in their faith. He is not really asking anybody to drink the Kool-aid in a Jim Jonesian sense of the word, certainly.

But talk about cryptic! Here's a little sample of his reasoning for the certainty of the date:

...certain numbers repeat in the Bible along with particular themes. The number five means atonement. Ten means completeness. Seventeen is heaven.Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D. Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years. If you multiply that number by 365.2422 -- the number of days in the solar calendar -- it equals 722,449. And if you add 51 (the number of days between April 1 and May 21) to that number, it equals 722,500. Multiply five by ten by 17 to equal 850, and multiply 850 by 850 and the result is the same: 722,500.

I didn't check it, but I'm betting that his math is correct. What it all means is another story.

There has been much more ado over the prediction of the Mayan Long Count Calendar and its December 21, 2012 "end of the age." That date even got its own movie, which is way cooler than radio. But Mr. Camping and his followers are making up for what they lack in technology with good, old-fashioned "take it to the streets" proselytizing.

(A well-written and respectful report by Jaweed Kaleem can be found here.)

I love reading the Bible, and I'm not ashamed to be called a follower of Jesus. I happen to believe that, one day, Jesus is indeed going to come again and cleanse the earth -- that, in and of itself, will be a heavenly time.

I'm not too sure about this whole May 21, 2011 thing...maybe Mr. Camping got it right this time. One thing you can say about it all, though.

We'll know in a coupla' days!

It's the Voter Fraud, Stupid!

Well, we all know that the Great Recession of 2008 has been bad. Most of us have been hit right where it hurts -- in our pockets.

Much ado was made in the purported "Tea/Republican Party Revolution" of 2010, when record numbers of incumbents were shown the exits in Washington and in state capitals around the nation. Voters were mad as hell, and just weren't going to take it anymore! And there were pledges of action on our top priorities as a nation.

So, as many state legislatures are winding up their current sessions and the US Congress prepares to depart for the hazy, lazy days of summer, we get the news that one of the main priorities on the minds of the people has, in fact, been firmly and thoroughly dealt with. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. No more worried days or sleepless nights.

It's voter fraud.

That's right...the "best and brightest" minds in the halls of our capitals have worked late into the night, burning the midnight oil in order to deal with that harbinger of gloom and doom: voter fraud.

The clearest example may be right here in my "home" (not) state of Florida, where our governor is expected to sign into law the bill party-lined through the legislature that places multiple restrictions on who can vote and when. It was hailed as "the most significant achievement" of Gov. Rick Scott's first legislative session.

Now, I know that Florida doesn't have the most sparkling reputation for electoral efficiency. But, according to "gubmint" records, there were an entire 31 cases of alleged voter fraud referred by the Florida Department of State over the last 3 years. My God...31 cases in a population of 18,537,000 people (give or take a few snowbirds.) No wonder the citizens were rioting in the streets to have this travesty overturned!

Or, as another class act governor has put it (I speak of none other than the Hon. Scott Walker of Wisconsin): "Wisconsin is broke" and some serious money has got to be saved. So, his legislature is considering a Voter ID bill that will cost (that's not a typo) taxpayers an additional $5.7 million per year. Holy Union Dues, Batman!

They're almost as bad in Wisconsin as the folks down in Florida; Attorney General Van Hollen found that a staggering 0.00003% of Wisconsin voters committed voter fraud. Yes, that’s about the same percentage as one has getting struck by lightning and greater than the chance to win the Lottery.

No need for me to drone on ad infinitum, ad nauseam....  you catch my drift, right?

Former President Bill Clinton was credited with perhaps the most micro-focused campaign strategy ever invented when, in unseating popular first-term President George H.W. Bush, he coined the phrase: "It's the economy, stupid!"

O, Slick Willy, where are you when we need you?

Osama, Obama and the Stealers Wheel

I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place...

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right,
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
 
Child of the 70's that I am, this was the oddly disconcerting melody that kept coming into my brain as I tried to sort out my feelings at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden.

On the one hand, with Americans and lovers of peace all over the world, I rejoiced at the demise of this generation's most visible terrorist. I have wept, grieved, fussed and fumed over the tragedy that was 9/11 and our country's seeming inability to bring the perpetrators to justice. Osama taunted, the world listened, and we felt impotent.

That ain't good.

So the news, when it came, opened a floodgate of raw emotion that has understandably erupted in everything from wild celebration to a little terrorist-baiting of our own. Suddenly, it seems as if the US is superior once again -- right and might are on the same side for once. The skinny Arab rich boy can hide no longer. He's dead (and evidently, according to multiple Facebook postings I have seen, sharing a warm spot in hell with Adolf Hitler.)

Cue the funky chords from Stealers Wheel:

     Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
      I got the feeling that something ain't right...

 A post from a good friend of mine said it pretty well --(thank you, Janet)

I am glad justice was done but am also sad today. "As I live," says the Lord GOD, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways!" ~ Ezekiel 33:11

Adding to the oddness of the whole Osama ending is the involvement of the President of the United States -- Barack Obama. The President has been haunted by innuendo over everything from the validity of his birth as a US citizen to his supposed "secret allegiance" to the tenets of Islam. Many are quick to claim that, if Obama had been President in 2001, he never would have ordered the pursuit of the al Qaeda ringleader -- it took President Bush to do that.

I don't even know how to answer that kind of malarkey-induced reasoning. 

But I do know that there is one indisputable fact that was true at some point over the weekend -- the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces gave the go-ahead for the elimination of the target that had eluded capture for nearly 10 years. And it was done. And the guy sitting in the big chair who had to make the call was Barack Hussein Obama. He is an American and he had the will, after all. So that is pretty much that.

How are we going to feel about the death of bin Laden in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years from now? (Well, I don't guess there will be too many of us here to feel anything in 100 years -- but you get my point.)

Right now, I'm just going to hold on to the jumble of images and emotions that are swirling through my brain and my heart. And listen to the music one more time --

Tryin' to make some since of it all,
But I can see it makes no sense at all...

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right,
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.   (words by Gerry Rafferty and Joe Egan)

 

 

Who Put the "Big" in Big Oil?

I have to admit that the numbers are staggering; I'll never see anywhere near this much money in a lifetime, much less in 3 months of a single year.

The quarterly reports for the world's petroleum companies are in. Total profits among the top five companies: $38,000,000,000. Yes, sports fans...that's thirty-eight billion and no/100 dollars (thank you, Mrs. Sparks!)

In three months, mind you.

To bring it on down, that's $422 million each day, $17,592,592 every hour, $293,201 every minute...or a cool $4,887 every second you and I are pumping $4 gas into our tanks!
(See the chart for yourself here.)

And, to top it all off (pun intended)...we are also subsidizing their profits (at least those who do "bidness" in America) to the tune of around $20 billion in tax breaks, credits, etc., each year. Because it's awfully expensive to drill, baby, drill, don't ya' know?

Now, I'm all for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the whole American way of life thing. Grab all the gusto you can, my friend...if you can dream it, you can do it...and all that jazz.

But, dang...we're hanging on by a thread here, people; couldn't you cut us just a little slack on the need for greed? I don't own any Exxon Mobil stock (ticker XOM, if you're interested) -- and maybe if I did I'd see it a little differently. But when is enough, enough?

Oh, the REAL kicker here? British Petroleum...remember that little oil-spill thingy in the Gulf? BP, who can't seem to find the money to pay out the claims they promised (or even just own up to the truth, which is free) -- bless their little corporate hearts, their earnings were down by nearly $120 million compared to the quarter before the spill. They only cranked out $5,480,000,000 in PROFITS this quarter! And that's after writing off nearly $6 billion in "expenses" related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

I guess times are tough all over.

So, the next time you hear one of your elected representatives standing up for the honor of Big Oil and droning on about their right to earn a decent living -- let me invite you to join me in the universal salute that tells them exactly what we think of that.

You'll need the middle finger of either hand, by the way.

Will People Really Die Without Health Care?

The derision has begun in earnest.

Those who favor the recently-passed legislation to terminate the "job-killing" Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (their language, not mine) are laughing --ROFL? -- over assertions that people will actually die if the law is overturned.

Of course, it seems pretty ironic to me that the supposed reason for terminating the law is about jobs and NOT about the kind of health care that Americans deserve. (See previous post for what is a "right" vs. what is "right.") I agree that the PPACA is NOT the ultimate legislation that we need...it has all sorts of holes in it and can and should be vastly improved.

But does that mean that the first step should be to completely terminate it in order to save jobs? (Which is still a debatable conclusion, in my estimation.)

I came across an article in the American Journal of Public Health  -- written in 2009 and based on studies by the Harvard Medical School, the Cambridge Health Alliance, and the Centers for Disease Control dating back to 1984-- that puts the whole idea of people losing their lives over an act of Congress into some perspective. (Read it here)

The study "assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity...As expected, death rates were... higher for males, current or former smokers, people who said that their health was fair or poor, and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health."

Additionally, "uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts..... Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.... It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually."


“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance. “Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”


I suppose what I really want to ask the congresspersons in charge of this latest effort at saving jobs is this: "How many jobs does it take to justify the loss of 1 American every 12 minutes?" 

Couldn't we at least slow down the job/cost rhetoric for a while, continue to extend coverage to those who need it and can't get it, and THEN find a way to deal with the more egregious elements of PPACA?

How much is health care costing us...really?

What's "Right" About Health Care?

A friend's comment made me stop and think this week; usually, that's a good thing to do.

"I don't believe that anyone has the right to healthcare," my friend asserted. I must admit that that took me aback. I literally began to shake my head. In my brain, I thought, "Surely there's something significant about that statement, but I just can't quite figure out what it is."

I do know that it bothered me, mostly because it raised an unexamined assumption in my own thinking. And, as a wise mentor of mine once told me, "You know what it makes out of you and me when we assume too much!" [Just cross off the u and the me in that word assume if you didn't get it...:)]

So I started pondering...what is a "right" anyway? And to what extent am I -- or we, in a just society -- bound by any moral/ethical responsibility in this whole healthcare discussion? (I am seriously not interested in the "politics" of the debate at this point...we have all heard the talking points on both sides ad infinitum, ad nauseum!)

After wrestling with it for a semi-sleepless night, I believe that my friend's statement is TRUE. It does not follow from either the legal or moral basis of our society that any individual deserves (or is guaranteed) to be treated for illness, injury, accident or natural pestilence.

I suppose if that were the end of the thought process and the debate, we could ask Congress to save us many, many billions of dollars and simply cancel ALL federal government support of healthcare, including Medicare and Medicaid.

After all, if it's not a right imparted by the Constitution, then, as the bona fide "we the people" US government, we really shouldn't be in the health care business (with the possible exception of the VA...since one could argue that veterans are, by their service to our nation, guaranteed the right to basic healthcare.)

And, quite honestly, for those who share in the Christian conviction that is part and parcel of the founding of our country, there is not really a biblical mandate to guarantee anything to anyone else -- except to love one another. (Romans 13:8 is the reference for those who might like to check it out.)

Even Jesus said, "Well, it all really boils down to just two main things -- love God with all your heart...and love your neighbor as yourself. That's it...that's all she wrote!" (Of course, I am translating freely here, but you get my drift! Read it in Matthew 22:37-40.)

So, like I said...as far as technically speaking...we're off the hook! Nowhere, anywhere, is there an authoritative document that says we have to give healthcare to people who more than likely can't afford it...or who, by the whim of fate, are afflicted with an "uninsurable" condition.

But that doesn't really seem to settle it for me.

I cannot get those nagging phrases out of my head, one from the Constitution (well, the preamble to the Constitution, so technically speaking I don't know if it counts) and the other from the scripture quoted above:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,... promote the general Welfare,...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (read it here.)

Love your neighbor as yourself.

General welfare...neighbor as yourself...what do those phrases have in common? Hmmm...there may be some value in thinking about what I can and should do for my neighbor, even if I am not required. There may be some things that I could/should agree to do -- actions that are "right," even if it's not a "right."

Of course, as my friend Dr. M. has repeatedly reminded me, there are really no limits on me, or on any church or charitable organization that I belong to, concerning how much I can and should help other people. That does not mean that it can/should be the domain of government.

General welfare...just such an intriguing phrase, though, that must have been stuck in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. What did they mean by that? How could I construct a meaningful framework for sorting through this hotly-debated issue?

How does any of us...and, most importantly, how do all of us as part of this Union (and not to mention as neighbors,) cooperate for the general welfare, a concept defined as "a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous." I guess it's the healthy part that has me thinking.

                                                              *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This post has gotten overlong already...so I'm going to have to post one more significant piece of the discussion I've been having with myself in the next installment. Thanks for reading...all comments (and I mean ALL) are welcomed and appreciated!

They That Live by the Law...

There's a term I've been trying to understand for some time now... the "strict constructionist" view of our US Constitution, which is advocated by no small number of self-described "conservatives" in our nation -- including a few of my friends.

I think I get that it has something to do with applying the Constitution "only as it is written"-- thereby requiring judges and other enforcers of the law to resist the temptation to "legislate" from the bench.

Seeking to interpret the law in any way is a big-time no-no from this point of view; judges who participate in such helter-skelter behavior have been served their walking papers in recent days as the tide of "original intent" has swept over a number of legal beachheads.

And, of course, many who favor the Tea Party movement, of not inconsiderable note in our country, are of this judicial persuasion -- including freshly-minted Rep. Mike Lee of Utah, who has been at the forefront of the Constitution-waving demonstrations that have peppered the start of the 112th Congress.

As I said in a previous post (see Except the Parts We Don't Like, below) I'm all for waving the Constitution -- though I'd actually prefer that more people READ it. And that goes double for the men and women who serve us as our congresspersons in Washington.

Mr. Lee recently made a great show of his understanding of how far our federal government has over-extended its reach in jurisprudence. He deftly and "expertly" explained how the US Congress erred in the early 1900's by outlawing the practice of child labor. (I'm not making this up...you can catch his campaign video clip here!)

His basic argument? Yes, we all know that child labor is bad; but, the Congress had no right or authority to regulate it. That should have been an issue of states' rights and the Feds should have left it alone. He even cites a Supreme Court decision that illustrates his point: Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918.

Clearly, Mr. Lee intones, the Supreme Court recognized that the founders would NEVER have weighed in on such an issue -- and, therefore, neither should we today similarly cede power to the central government even in a situation involving clear moral hazard. (emphasis and interpretation mine)

Evidently this speech played well to the base, as they say, since Mr. Lee is now Rep. Lee. But there's just one tiny flaw in his reasoning. The Supreme Court reversed itself in 1941, in a case known as United States v. Darby:

The conclusion is inescapable that Hammer v. Dagenhart was a departure from the principles which have prevailed in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause both before and since the decision and that such vitality, as a precedent, as it then had has long since been exhausted. It should be and now is overruled.  (emphasis mine; quote from Sec. 117 of the decision, which you can read in its entirety here)

Wait a minute...the Supreme Court says that there is a "principle of interpretation" that must be considered when fiddling with the whole rule-of-law-thingy?

And, by the way, Mr. Lee kind of didn't mention that the Court overturned itself on the very case he cites as the pinnacle of his interpretation. Well, how do you like them apples?

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what else the Tea Party has brewing for us in Washington now!

When Guns Are Outlawed...

Rep. Louie Gohmert, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, has his own preferred legislation in response to the tragic events in Arizona this past week.

"If members of Congress wishes [sic] to carry a weapon in the federal District of Columbia, it should be permissible. Accordingly, we are in the process of drafting a bill that will allow members of Congress to do that." (Read the quote here, if you'd like.) Rep. Gohmert perhaps envisions a return to the days of dueling lawmakers and vigilante justice. Hmmm...he might be on to something there!

There is just one slight problem with his legislation. It's NOT illegal to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia, with proper training and permitting, of course. District of Columbia vs. Heller, heard before the Supreme Court in 2008, struck down a 1975 law that had banned firearms in federal enclaves.

But, hey, what's a little Supreme Court decision or two amongst friends? And why should our legislators be bothered with knowing the law? They can just make new ones!

Maybe I'm being a little hard on Rep. Gohmert...but, then again, this is the same guy who melted down JUST A WEE BIT in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN when Andy challenged his assertion (actually first delivered on Fox News) that pregnant foreign women are having babies in the U.S. “with the nefarious purpose of turning them into little terrorists, who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm.”

COOPER: The FBI says this is just not happening. You are spreading scare stories, and this is completely about politics.

GOHMERT: It is happening. It is happening.

COOPER: Where? Give me some evidence. Tell me one person, one terror baby that’s been born? Can you tell me?

GOHMERT: The explosions will not happen for 10 or 15 or 20 years and then you will be one of those blips. I’m not comparable to Winston Churchill, but the detractors like you are comparable to his detractors. [...] Anderson, do you really believe that the ones that want to destroy the United States are more stupid than these entrepreneurs in China, than these people in Mexico? [...] And I bet you, on 9/10, he were to come on your show and say there is no credible report of a plan to take down the World Trade Centers, because he didn’t have one.

COOPER: OK. So, you don’t believe the FBI when they currently say there is no credible report?

GOHMERT: — taking shots at me and look at the gaping hole in the security of this country. I’m an easy target, and you and Jon Stewart can have your fun. But please, at some point, look at the gaping hole in our security. (see the clip here)

I'm certainly not saying that security should become lax, nor am I opposing true Second Amendment rights in our great country. But, I guess I am questioning just a LITTLE bit the reactionary, emotional response that is being encouraged by some of our elected leadership. Election, in my understanding, implies a certain level of responsibility not only to and for your constituency -- but to your country -- all of it! 

I suppose that the good people of Rep. Gohmert's district are entitled to return him to Congress for as long as they wish. We've had Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ted Stephens, Charles Rangel and others over the years who were returned repeatedly by the electorate despite attitudes and actions considered outside the mainstream of American life. That's just part of who we are, and part of our greatness.

Now that we've questioned the use of such terms as target and crosshairs in political discourse, maybe Mr. Gohmert can help us consider the wisdom of "taking potshots" at those who disagree!

A Deadly Spin

I often (and purposely) write this blog with good-natured tongue placed firmly in my cheek. At least, I intend for it to come across that way. There's plenty of perfidy and malfeasance afoot in our world, especially in the realm of politics. I figure a laugh or two along the way toward making a point is not a bad thing.

Today, I write with no good-natured or humorous intent whatsoever. The subject is serious to me, and to many others. It is no exaggeration to say that it is deadly serious for many.

Much ado is being made over efforts in Congress to "repeal and replace" what has come to be termed Obamacare, the health care legislation passed in 2010 and known formally as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I'm not here to argue the deficiencies or merits of the law...that's a whole other series of posts. What has struck me is the very issue of trying to build a system of health care that is dependent on for-profit insurers for regulation and decision-making when it comes to who gets care -- and how much, what kind, etc. -- and, painfully, who does not.

One of the friends of my youth (thanks, EG) raised a significant point earlier this week as we bantered over healthcare via Facebook: "Obamacare" is NOT health insurance, and is far too dependent on forcing both citizens and insurors to participate in the system. It is a "dog that will not hunt," to borrow his colloquialism -- one that any true child of the South will reverberate with.

To wit, an article by Dr. Pauline Chen in Thursday's New York Times. Dr. Chen tells of her own personal experience with the story of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old young woman who died during the struggle with her family's health insurer over the approval of a liver transplant. I'll let you read the details of the story here; let's just say that the giant insurance conglomerate, CIGNA, took a real kick in the ass of their public approval over the whole affair.

CIGNA's former head of corporate communications, Wendell Potter, has detailed the stories of Nataline and many others in his new book, Deadly Spin. He describes his task there this way: “It was my job to enhance those firms’ reputations. But as one of the industry’s top public relations executives and media spokesmen, I also helped create and perpetuate myth that had no other purpose but to sustain those companies’ extraordinarily high profitability.”

Dr. Chen calls it "a fascinating book that details the methods he and his colleagues used to manipulate public opinion...including myth-making...front groups, paid spies and jiggered studies."After working to save CIGNA's reputation over the Sarkisyan case, Mr. Potter remarked: “It became clearer to me than ever that I was part of an industry that would do whatever it took to perpetuate its extraordinarily profitable existence,” he wrote -- “I had sold my soul.”

The point that intrigues me is not to pursue endless criticism of health insurers (though a healthy dose of skepticism wouldn't hurt!) -- but rather to examine what Potter and Chen lift up as the fact that the United States “has entrusted one of the most important societal functions, providing health care, to private health insurance companies.”

[Note: Guess who holds the single largest number of exemptions to the new Health Care Act for their employees? CIGNA -- with 265,000! There's not a single union or employee organization that even comes close...check the data here.]

This issue goes WAY beyond partisan politics; it's too important for any of us-- and certainly for our elected leadership -- to submit to hearsay and emotional rhetoric in order to find a solution. Please, Messrs. O'Connell, Boehner, and Obama -- try to work together and, for God's sake, get it right!

Before too many of the rest of us have to die.

         *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  *   *   *   *   *

Post-Publication Note --

Another good friend of my youth (thanks to the former Ms. Hollis) has pointed out that Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi should be included in the group I have implored to work together. Amen, sista!