Haven't blogged in a while, for obvious reasons. But I'm sure that Dad would want me to go on writing, so here goes. This one's for you, Dad - as is all the rest of the crap I put up here. If only it were worthy...
Anyway, I'm back in North Carolina for a couple of days - long enough to learn that I am a dangerous criminal. Why? I'm living with someone I'm not married to. (Being engaged doesn't count.) That's illegal in North Carolina, and a Pender County woman lost her job with the sheriff's department because of it. (Incidentally, the Triangle stopped caring about this law a long time ago.) The woman is suing to have the law taken off the books.
Still in the endless circus of NC politics, there's a bill before the General Assembly that would make it illegal for colleges to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs. This is one of conservatism's sacred cows - apparently, there's some huge liberal conspiracy to keep conservatives out of academia. Conservatives still believe this despite the fact that there is no evidence of someone being denied a job at a university because of their political beliefs. Nor is there evidence of systematic discrimination against conservative students. At UNC, when a student was castigated by a professor for making homophobic statements in class, the professor was swiftly (and rightly) punished by the administration. To my knowledge, no conservative has ever demonstrated that they got lower grades for speaking their mind - indeed, in my experience, professors like students who disagree with them in class. If there's a lack of conservative viewpoints being heard in the classroom, it's because conservative students are too chickenshit to speak up. Yes, professors are overwhelmingly liberal - but that can be described by conservatives' reluctance to enter academia, rather than by some invented liberal malice.
And in the department of Democrats Behaving Badly, House Speaker Jim Black attempted to sell a state-owned building to a private developer for $1. I wish I could get that kind of deal. This kind of giveaway is shameful whatever your view on publicly owned land; developers should have to pay to acquire property just like everyone else. Fortunately for us part-owners, Governor Easley did something right for a change and challenged Black on this giveaway.
Into national politics, where I want to touch on the so-called "pharmacists' rights" movement. Seems pharmacists want the green light to deny treatment to patients who request it, especially where it concerns birth control. Their own organization refuses to permit such denials, so they want government to require licensing boards to license pharmacists who, for whatever reason, don't want to do their job. In this case, I trust the pharmacists to set ethical standards for their own profession. If they want to require that their members abide by the Hippocratic Oath and not deny treatment to those in need, so be it.
One last thing, which is of little import to non-newspaper-geeks out there. The Associated Press has decided to offer an alternative lead to all of their stories. They will continue to offer the straight lead giving the reader the basic information of the article, but will allow papers to choose another lead that attempts to snazz the article up a little. It's scary that newspapers have to snazz up issues of national importance in order to distract people from the Michael Jackson case. And I'm not sure that I like an alternative that gives journalists and papers another opportunity to let personal opinion seep into their stories.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Thoughts of the Day
Thank you, Congress, for deciding that you have the right to make medical decisions for me. Sorry, Mom, Dad, and Danielle, but you'll have to clear your decisions regarding me with Tom DeLay first.
Also, according to a new book, judicial decisions expanding equal rights to all Americans creates "de facto judicial tyranny." So it's more tyrannical to tell someone they can do something than to tell someone they can't. Interesting.
Also, according to a new book, judicial decisions expanding equal rights to all Americans creates "de facto judicial tyranny." So it's more tyrannical to tell someone they can do something than to tell someone they can't. Interesting.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Don't It Always Seem To Go...
Before we begin: Drilling in the ANWR is now approved, 51-49. Just what we need - something else to encourage us not to concentrate on finding alternative sources of energy.
So while all the media's efforts regarding the Supreme Court seem concentrated on the utterly unimportant Ten Commandments issue, there's a couple of other recently-decided or soon-to-be-decided cases that might actually affect the way we live our lives. To wit:
The least important is a little-noticed case (it was on the back page of the N&O, and didn't make the Post to my knowledge) saying that some intel agents who got screwed by the CIA couldn't bring a suit against them because their work had to remain classified. This is a bit sketchy. It tells me that my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances somehow is subject to "national security" concerns (by which I mean the whim of whoever's in power). The right to sue is one of our basic civil liberties - it prevents us from being exploited by ruthless people (like the CIA). A lawsuit with merit, like the lawsuit in question here, shouldn't be kept out of the courtroom for any reason. Otherwise, the CIA could operate pretty much with impunity, which leads to undeniably bad things. Personally, I think that if the CIA doesn't want something revealed, it shouldn't screw over the people to whom the secrets are entrusted. Either way, Earth to Justices: ever heard of a closed courtroom? That way, your "national security" can be maintained, and justice can still be served.
The CNN article on it is here.
The other one is even scarier, and fortunately it's gotten some media attention (though not much). I call it the Big Yellow Taxi case, since essentially it would give state and city governments power to pave your personal paradise and put up a parking lot. The government of New Haven, CT (I think) proposes to use "eminent domain" power to take land from working-class citizens and give it to private developers to use for a shopping center. The question is whether this constitutes the "public use" for which private property can be taken under the 5th Amendment.
Personally, I'd like to see eminent domain go the way of the dodo, though since it's written in the Constitution I know that's not going to happen. What worries me, though, is that "public use" is being stretched way beyond its borders here. I can understand the need for eminent domain in road-building and the like (though I still think the government should just buy the land like anyone else. Everybody has a price). But for use in private enterprise? Just because the public would shop there doesn't justify it. Basically, a Court decision in favor of New Haven opens the door for this scary scenario: if a developer wants your land, he can use his/her government connections to get it. You don't get to choose whether or not to sell or to negotiate price. Corporate America says jump, you say "how high?"
This is an outrage that needs to be stopped - and unfortunately it's in the one branch of government that doesn't respond well to public outrage. Keep your fingers crossed, folks.
Another thing: Paul Wolfowitz? The World Bank? Sure, he gets to ruin countries financially, but he doesn't get to blow stuff up, so I don't see how he'll fit in...
So while all the media's efforts regarding the Supreme Court seem concentrated on the utterly unimportant Ten Commandments issue, there's a couple of other recently-decided or soon-to-be-decided cases that might actually affect the way we live our lives. To wit:
The least important is a little-noticed case (it was on the back page of the N&O, and didn't make the Post to my knowledge) saying that some intel agents who got screwed by the CIA couldn't bring a suit against them because their work had to remain classified. This is a bit sketchy. It tells me that my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances somehow is subject to "national security" concerns (by which I mean the whim of whoever's in power). The right to sue is one of our basic civil liberties - it prevents us from being exploited by ruthless people (like the CIA). A lawsuit with merit, like the lawsuit in question here, shouldn't be kept out of the courtroom for any reason. Otherwise, the CIA could operate pretty much with impunity, which leads to undeniably bad things. Personally, I think that if the CIA doesn't want something revealed, it shouldn't screw over the people to whom the secrets are entrusted. Either way, Earth to Justices: ever heard of a closed courtroom? That way, your "national security" can be maintained, and justice can still be served.
The CNN article on it is here.
The other one is even scarier, and fortunately it's gotten some media attention (though not much). I call it the Big Yellow Taxi case, since essentially it would give state and city governments power to pave your personal paradise and put up a parking lot. The government of New Haven, CT (I think) proposes to use "eminent domain" power to take land from working-class citizens and give it to private developers to use for a shopping center. The question is whether this constitutes the "public use" for which private property can be taken under the 5th Amendment.
Personally, I'd like to see eminent domain go the way of the dodo, though since it's written in the Constitution I know that's not going to happen. What worries me, though, is that "public use" is being stretched way beyond its borders here. I can understand the need for eminent domain in road-building and the like (though I still think the government should just buy the land like anyone else. Everybody has a price). But for use in private enterprise? Just because the public would shop there doesn't justify it. Basically, a Court decision in favor of New Haven opens the door for this scary scenario: if a developer wants your land, he can use his/her government connections to get it. You don't get to choose whether or not to sell or to negotiate price. Corporate America says jump, you say "how high?"
This is an outrage that needs to be stopped - and unfortunately it's in the one branch of government that doesn't respond well to public outrage. Keep your fingers crossed, folks.
Another thing: Paul Wolfowitz? The World Bank? Sure, he gets to ruin countries financially, but he doesn't get to blow stuff up, so I don't see how he'll fit in...
Friday, March 11, 2005
So Much For Your Cedar-Planked Canoe
Coming as it did on the heels of two successful popular uprisings - the Rose Revolution in Georgia (the country) and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine - America was looking hopefully towards the Fiesta - er, Cedar - Revolution in Lebanon. Americans, more than anyone else, had caught Revolution Fever. We enjoyed watching these mass spectacles, possibly because we ourselves don't have the balls to participate in them anymore.
Well, it seems we have a regular Cedar Counter-Revolution on our hands. About twice as many demonstrators came out this week to protest, oddly enough, in favor of the Syrian occupation. Seems they think that this "Cedar Revolution" is just trading one form of tyranny for the other, and Syria hasn't been all bad, really. At least they're Muslim.
It came on a day when Bush was praising the Lebanese for showing their faith in democracy and issuing a withdrawal order to Syria. Jon Stewart said it best: apparently, Bush's foreign policy goal is to spread irony throughout the world. Looks like Bush is going to have to choose which is more important right now - letting Lebanon's people choose for themselves even if the decision looks stupid to the neocons, or trying to force Syria out whether the Lebanese care one way or the other.
And here we see the naked truth: our actions in Iraq have hurt the cause of democracy more than they have helped. Because of the invasion, America - and anything that America supports, such as the Cedar Revolution - becomes tainted. We've made people over there afraid of America, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Fear of America can be manipulated by clever politicians such as Assad and his Hezbollah patsies. The result is a bunch of people who are convinced that if they let go of Syria, America will just step in and start pulling the same strings.
What surprises me is that Bush doesn't understand how Islamists can use fear to their advantage. The Bush election strategy makes brilliant use of fear; namely, evangelical Christians' fear of modern culture and middle-class America's fear of terrorism. Shouldn't Bush see the parallels, and stop doing things that would make people scared of us? You know, things like invading countries at the drop of a hat? I suppose that would be too much to ask of an administration that hasn't been able to connect the dots on anything.
Quick hitters:
The bankruptcy bill. Republicans are going to make it harder for someone who got seriously ill to get their life back on track, while doing nothing about the ease with which rich people can evade their creditors. All as a big giveaway to the credit card companies who are - surprise! - big campaign contributors. You didn't hear about it because the media care more about the Ten Commandments than actual worthwile topics of conversation. To all you working-class Republicans out there: you put these guys in there. Now you're getting screwed while the people you elected channel money towards big campaign contributors. But at least gays aren't gonna get married, right?
John Bolton. Talk about your absurd appointments. Isn't this sort of like putting Fred Phelps in charge of the Human Rights Campaign? I don't trust the UN as far as I can throw it either, but seriously. We should at least pretend like we're trying to get along with everybody.
The Ten Commandments. It's a fun issue to debate, but I don't, quite frankly, give a fuck. All I'm saying is that if a lack of government support is a threat to your faith, you've got some pretty damn weak faith.
Terrence Boyle: I think Democrats were blocking him simply out of habit. So he's a little conservative (except, apparently, on environmental issues). He'll fit right in on the 4th Circuit. Save the political capital for, say, John Bolton.
Well, it seems we have a regular Cedar Counter-Revolution on our hands. About twice as many demonstrators came out this week to protest, oddly enough, in favor of the Syrian occupation. Seems they think that this "Cedar Revolution" is just trading one form of tyranny for the other, and Syria hasn't been all bad, really. At least they're Muslim.
It came on a day when Bush was praising the Lebanese for showing their faith in democracy and issuing a withdrawal order to Syria. Jon Stewart said it best: apparently, Bush's foreign policy goal is to spread irony throughout the world. Looks like Bush is going to have to choose which is more important right now - letting Lebanon's people choose for themselves even if the decision looks stupid to the neocons, or trying to force Syria out whether the Lebanese care one way or the other.
And here we see the naked truth: our actions in Iraq have hurt the cause of democracy more than they have helped. Because of the invasion, America - and anything that America supports, such as the Cedar Revolution - becomes tainted. We've made people over there afraid of America, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Fear of America can be manipulated by clever politicians such as Assad and his Hezbollah patsies. The result is a bunch of people who are convinced that if they let go of Syria, America will just step in and start pulling the same strings.
What surprises me is that Bush doesn't understand how Islamists can use fear to their advantage. The Bush election strategy makes brilliant use of fear; namely, evangelical Christians' fear of modern culture and middle-class America's fear of terrorism. Shouldn't Bush see the parallels, and stop doing things that would make people scared of us? You know, things like invading countries at the drop of a hat? I suppose that would be too much to ask of an administration that hasn't been able to connect the dots on anything.
Quick hitters:
The bankruptcy bill. Republicans are going to make it harder for someone who got seriously ill to get their life back on track, while doing nothing about the ease with which rich people can evade their creditors. All as a big giveaway to the credit card companies who are - surprise! - big campaign contributors. You didn't hear about it because the media care more about the Ten Commandments than actual worthwile topics of conversation. To all you working-class Republicans out there: you put these guys in there. Now you're getting screwed while the people you elected channel money towards big campaign contributors. But at least gays aren't gonna get married, right?
John Bolton. Talk about your absurd appointments. Isn't this sort of like putting Fred Phelps in charge of the Human Rights Campaign? I don't trust the UN as far as I can throw it either, but seriously. We should at least pretend like we're trying to get along with everybody.
The Ten Commandments. It's a fun issue to debate, but I don't, quite frankly, give a fuck. All I'm saying is that if a lack of government support is a threat to your faith, you've got some pretty damn weak faith.
Terrence Boyle: I think Democrats were blocking him simply out of habit. So he's a little conservative (except, apparently, on environmental issues). He'll fit right in on the 4th Circuit. Save the political capital for, say, John Bolton.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
What's Behind the Ballot Boxes?
Palestinians picked their leader for the first time ever. Lebanon's people brought down the Syrian puppet running their country. Egypt has its first shot at a real election in who knows how long. The Iraq election looks like it might not be a total disaster. And Saudis are voting - at least for show.
All of which leads to the question: are the neocons smarter than they look?
The whole idea behind the new neocon policy is that democracy will spread if we give it a little help - military or otherwise - every now and then. They claim that the war in Iraq brought democracy to the Middle East, and that we are the reason for the events I just listed. The critics, I note, have been eerily silent.
Consider me one of the critics.
I'm not sure I buy the bit about democracy being contagious in the first place. Arabs have been voting in Israel since 1949. Turkey's been voting since 1922 or so. Why hadn't it caught on until now? Besides, if you buy the argument the neocons are selling, the Iraq war becomes superfluous anyway: Palestine's elections, which were certain to occur after Arafat's death, would have catalyzed democratic movements throughout the region.
I personally think there are a host of factors leading to the Mideast votes. Call me cynical, but I'm chalking the Saudi Arabia and Egypt votes down to the old trick of making people think they have power to keep them calm. I'll continue to do that until I see Mubarak or the Saudi Crown Prince turn over power because of the results of an election. I'm hopeful but not optimistic. The reason for Palestine's vote was already mentioned - Arafat's death.
As for Lebanon, I think the mass demonstrations in the wake of the assassination of Hariri would have happened with or without our invasion of Iraq. After Israel's withdrawal in 2000, Lebanon had enjoyed relative calm - and had only one other foreign force bothering them. Hariri was able to keep the Christians, Muslims, and Druze away from each others' throats long enough to get them united against the common enemy to the north and east. And when Hariri was assassinated and the blame somehow fell on Syria, well, it was an excuse for the Lebanese to do what they've been wanting to do anyway - lose the puppet.
Of course, now Bush feels emboldened, despite the fact that he might have had nothing to do with the spread of democracy in the Middle East. He's going after Syria now - the evidence linking them to Hariri's assassination and to the recent Tel Aviv bombing is about as existent as the WMD evidence at this point. Whee.
All of which leads to the question: are the neocons smarter than they look?
The whole idea behind the new neocon policy is that democracy will spread if we give it a little help - military or otherwise - every now and then. They claim that the war in Iraq brought democracy to the Middle East, and that we are the reason for the events I just listed. The critics, I note, have been eerily silent.
Consider me one of the critics.
I'm not sure I buy the bit about democracy being contagious in the first place. Arabs have been voting in Israel since 1949. Turkey's been voting since 1922 or so. Why hadn't it caught on until now? Besides, if you buy the argument the neocons are selling, the Iraq war becomes superfluous anyway: Palestine's elections, which were certain to occur after Arafat's death, would have catalyzed democratic movements throughout the region.
I personally think there are a host of factors leading to the Mideast votes. Call me cynical, but I'm chalking the Saudi Arabia and Egypt votes down to the old trick of making people think they have power to keep them calm. I'll continue to do that until I see Mubarak or the Saudi Crown Prince turn over power because of the results of an election. I'm hopeful but not optimistic. The reason for Palestine's vote was already mentioned - Arafat's death.
As for Lebanon, I think the mass demonstrations in the wake of the assassination of Hariri would have happened with or without our invasion of Iraq. After Israel's withdrawal in 2000, Lebanon had enjoyed relative calm - and had only one other foreign force bothering them. Hariri was able to keep the Christians, Muslims, and Druze away from each others' throats long enough to get them united against the common enemy to the north and east. And when Hariri was assassinated and the blame somehow fell on Syria, well, it was an excuse for the Lebanese to do what they've been wanting to do anyway - lose the puppet.
Of course, now Bush feels emboldened, despite the fact that he might have had nothing to do with the spread of democracy in the Middle East. He's going after Syria now - the evidence linking them to Hariri's assassination and to the recent Tel Aviv bombing is about as existent as the WMD evidence at this point. Whee.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
By Request...
Popular demand has requested that I post more often. And by "popular demand" I mean Ben. Thus the title change.
Anyway, my thought of the day is this: does anyone actually believe Bush when he says he harbors no intentions of attacking Iran? Didn't he say that about Iraq too?
Also, why the HELL have we done nothing about Darfur so far? I would think that if there were any situation that called for unilateral military action, this is it. And yet, it seems to be rapidly vanishing from the front page of the paper. Given a choice between bullying Iran and stopping genocide, it's a no-brainer.
Also, Bush's budget. Poor people don't need health care anyway. Let's build more three-billion-dollar bombs. America: Fuck Yeah.
A budget rant will be forthcoming - just thought I'd get that one little bit off my chest.
Anyway, my thought of the day is this: does anyone actually believe Bush when he says he harbors no intentions of attacking Iran? Didn't he say that about Iraq too?
Also, why the HELL have we done nothing about Darfur so far? I would think that if there were any situation that called for unilateral military action, this is it. And yet, it seems to be rapidly vanishing from the front page of the paper. Given a choice between bullying Iran and stopping genocide, it's a no-brainer.
Also, Bush's budget. Poor people don't need health care anyway. Let's build more three-billion-dollar bombs. America: Fuck Yeah.
A budget rant will be forthcoming - just thought I'd get that one little bit off my chest.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Indecent Proposals
Blogging from Washington. If you want to see me and/or Danielle this weekend, let me know.
Anyway, in all the hullaballoo this week about Social Security, the death of the former Lebanese PM, and the nomination of John Negroponte for intel czar, two repulsive laws got through Congressional houses by absurd margins.
The first is a law stiffening penalties for "indecency." So, basically, if the FCC doesn't like what you're broadcasting, they can fine you even more for it. That's comforting. I guess 386 representatives - including my own David Price, who I usually agree with on most things - want to do my thinking for me. Hell, I'm not even sure I see the rationale for this law. I just don't understand what's driving this whole "decency" movement - and I'm usually able to at least see the other side of an argument, even if I don't agree with it. Someone please tell me why the FCC should be able to fine a broadcaster simply because they feel like it.
The second is a law that makes it harder for class action suits to be filed against corporations by moving them to overcrowded federal courts. Seventy-three senators voted to "fix" a system that ain't really broke. For every wacked-out lawsuit out there, there's another thirty that have merit that don't get to court. So quit whining, Corporate America.
You know, the biggest problem with torts is that corporations file too many frivolous ones to discourage individuals from challenging them. So to Republicans, and to half the Democrats, the fix is to make it harder for individuals to sue corporations. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess Republicans have had enough of courts holding corporations responsible for their actions. Gotta give those poor mistreated businessmen another free ride. And don't try to use that lame-ass excuse of how excessive torts hurt the economy. That's a load of crap and you know it.
What really annoys me is that there is a section of law that needs to be reformed - patent law. Currently, patents are so easy for Big Business to get that any innovation probably infringes on some patent, somewhere, somehow. As a result, competition and innovation - the twin engines of a capitalist economy - are both stifled. But this issue is too arcane to make headlines, and probably won't get addressed any time soon. So on with the bullshit, Congress.
Anyway, in all the hullaballoo this week about Social Security, the death of the former Lebanese PM, and the nomination of John Negroponte for intel czar, two repulsive laws got through Congressional houses by absurd margins.
The first is a law stiffening penalties for "indecency." So, basically, if the FCC doesn't like what you're broadcasting, they can fine you even more for it. That's comforting. I guess 386 representatives - including my own David Price, who I usually agree with on most things - want to do my thinking for me. Hell, I'm not even sure I see the rationale for this law. I just don't understand what's driving this whole "decency" movement - and I'm usually able to at least see the other side of an argument, even if I don't agree with it. Someone please tell me why the FCC should be able to fine a broadcaster simply because they feel like it.
The second is a law that makes it harder for class action suits to be filed against corporations by moving them to overcrowded federal courts. Seventy-three senators voted to "fix" a system that ain't really broke. For every wacked-out lawsuit out there, there's another thirty that have merit that don't get to court. So quit whining, Corporate America.
You know, the biggest problem with torts is that corporations file too many frivolous ones to discourage individuals from challenging them. So to Republicans, and to half the Democrats, the fix is to make it harder for individuals to sue corporations. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess Republicans have had enough of courts holding corporations responsible for their actions. Gotta give those poor mistreated businessmen another free ride. And don't try to use that lame-ass excuse of how excessive torts hurt the economy. That's a load of crap and you know it.
What really annoys me is that there is a section of law that needs to be reformed - patent law. Currently, patents are so easy for Big Business to get that any innovation probably infringes on some patent, somewhere, somehow. As a result, competition and innovation - the twin engines of a capitalist economy - are both stifled. But this issue is too arcane to make headlines, and probably won't get addressed any time soon. So on with the bullshit, Congress.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Scary Fact of the Day
Time published a fact that will send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about our civil liberties:
- 74% of high-school students believe that people should not be allowed to burn or deface the American flag to make a political statement.
- 36% of high-school students believe that newspapers should get government approval before printing a story.
Which raises the question: do they even teach the First Amendment in schools anymore?
The first number I can understand, since September 11 was part of these kids' formative years - hopefully they can temper their emotional attachment to the flag with a healthy dose of First Amendment understanding as the memories of the attacks recede. But the latter number is scary, even if a significant amount of students were just fooling around when they filled in the bubbles.
Your grain of salt for the day: no error margin was listed. It's a USA Today poll, and those are usually +/- 4%.
Your other grain of salt: these kids are in an environment - high school - where authority does control the media. That probably warps the numbers a little bit - we should consider that an unknown number of respondents gave their answers out of sheer complacency. Which is just as dangerous, really.
- 74% of high-school students believe that people should not be allowed to burn or deface the American flag to make a political statement.
- 36% of high-school students believe that newspapers should get government approval before printing a story.
Which raises the question: do they even teach the First Amendment in schools anymore?
The first number I can understand, since September 11 was part of these kids' formative years - hopefully they can temper their emotional attachment to the flag with a healthy dose of First Amendment understanding as the memories of the attacks recede. But the latter number is scary, even if a significant amount of students were just fooling around when they filled in the bubbles.
Your grain of salt for the day: no error margin was listed. It's a USA Today poll, and those are usually +/- 4%.
Your other grain of salt: these kids are in an environment - high school - where authority does control the media. That probably warps the numbers a little bit - we should consider that an unknown number of respondents gave their answers out of sheer complacency. Which is just as dangerous, really.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Best Of Thirteen Sisters...
Beware, good citizens of Virginia - the House of Delegates is trying to get into your pants.
The Virginia House has passed a bill that would make it a $50 fine to wear pants that show your underwear in public. No word yet on how this affects swimsuits, which essentially are underwear. Or the Jefferson Senior Streak. Or if leaving your fly open counts. Either way, should the Senate follow suit, cops will now have an excuse to stare at your booty.
I hear the next bill under consideration is a proposal to change the state motto from "Sic Semper Tyrannis" to "Sic Semper Underwear."
And a word from my father: "Thank goodness, these guardians of the right and holy are able to ignore phony issues like transportation, vehicle taxation, revenue problems and the like and attack the truly important problems."
Here's the Post's Marc Fisher on the issue.
Sweet, sweet Virginia, always keeps an open door...
The Virginia House has passed a bill that would make it a $50 fine to wear pants that show your underwear in public. No word yet on how this affects swimsuits, which essentially are underwear. Or the Jefferson Senior Streak. Or if leaving your fly open counts. Either way, should the Senate follow suit, cops will now have an excuse to stare at your booty.
I hear the next bill under consideration is a proposal to change the state motto from "Sic Semper Tyrannis" to "Sic Semper Underwear."
And a word from my father: "Thank goodness, these guardians of the right and holy are able to ignore phony issues like transportation, vehicle taxation, revenue problems and the like and attack the truly important problems."
Here's the Post's Marc Fisher on the issue.
Sweet, sweet Virginia, always keeps an open door...
Monday, February 07, 2005
Tax "Reform"
Another cornerstone of Bush's domestic agenda is tax "reform" - code for another tax cut. It will be given in the guise of the simplification of the tax laws, something that even I admit would be a good thing.
Bush's ideas seem to revolve around a couple of ideas, both of which are bad. The first is a "flat" tax, something that's been kicked around since the Gingrich era and even before. On the surface, this seems fair. Everyone pays a certain percentage of what they make, no ifs, ands, or buts. The rich pay more since they make more; the poor pay less since they make less. Everybody's happy, right?
Wrong. What flat tax advocates fail to realize is that as income decreases, the percentage of your income spent on essentials increases. So taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year and someone who makes $200,000 a year at the same rate is absurd - in the first case, you're taking away money spent on food, rent, water, and other necessary expenditures, while in the second case you're taking away disposable income that would otherwise be spent on luxury items (or saved). A flat tax, then, would hit the poor far harder than the rich, and lead to more income disparity.
Bush's second idea - a national sales tax - would be even dumber. Sales taxes are the ultimate in regressive taxes, since they tax necessary purchases and luxury items the same. Since the poor, by necessity, spend a higher percentage of their income, they will be taxed at a higher rate than those who can afford to save and invest. Fortunately, the idea of a national sales tax seems DOA in Congress.
I agree that the tax code needs to be simplified, if for no other reason than to make compliance a lot easier. However, some semblance of progressivity needs to remain if we are to have a fair tax system. Since I don't believe in disparaging Bush's solution without providing one of my own, I propose the following: a flat tax based on disposable income. "Living wage" information is available for most jurisdictions - these data can be used to calculate the least amount of income necessary to survive for a given family situation in a given place. (Here in Raleigh, it's $11/hour, or $22,000/year, for a single person living alone.) Also, a tax credit (akin to the earned-income tax credit) could be issued to those who make less than a living wage. Any income beyond the living wage is disposable income and is taxed at a flat rate - and no deductions whatsoever.
This system maintains progressivity at the lower income levels while making the tax code a lot simpler. It may not be a perfect idea, but it's a start. Of course, no one with any power to propose such a system would be reading this. But we can dream.
Bush's ideas seem to revolve around a couple of ideas, both of which are bad. The first is a "flat" tax, something that's been kicked around since the Gingrich era and even before. On the surface, this seems fair. Everyone pays a certain percentage of what they make, no ifs, ands, or buts. The rich pay more since they make more; the poor pay less since they make less. Everybody's happy, right?
Wrong. What flat tax advocates fail to realize is that as income decreases, the percentage of your income spent on essentials increases. So taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year and someone who makes $200,000 a year at the same rate is absurd - in the first case, you're taking away money spent on food, rent, water, and other necessary expenditures, while in the second case you're taking away disposable income that would otherwise be spent on luxury items (or saved). A flat tax, then, would hit the poor far harder than the rich, and lead to more income disparity.
Bush's second idea - a national sales tax - would be even dumber. Sales taxes are the ultimate in regressive taxes, since they tax necessary purchases and luxury items the same. Since the poor, by necessity, spend a higher percentage of their income, they will be taxed at a higher rate than those who can afford to save and invest. Fortunately, the idea of a national sales tax seems DOA in Congress.
I agree that the tax code needs to be simplified, if for no other reason than to make compliance a lot easier. However, some semblance of progressivity needs to remain if we are to have a fair tax system. Since I don't believe in disparaging Bush's solution without providing one of my own, I propose the following: a flat tax based on disposable income. "Living wage" information is available for most jurisdictions - these data can be used to calculate the least amount of income necessary to survive for a given family situation in a given place. (Here in Raleigh, it's $11/hour, or $22,000/year, for a single person living alone.) Also, a tax credit (akin to the earned-income tax credit) could be issued to those who make less than a living wage. Any income beyond the living wage is disposable income and is taxed at a flat rate - and no deductions whatsoever.
This system maintains progressivity at the lower income levels while making the tax code a lot simpler. It may not be a perfect idea, but it's a start. Of course, no one with any power to propose such a system would be reading this. But we can dream.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Adventures in Controlling the Media IV
I'm starting to think there could be a book written about the Bush administration's attempts to undermine the idea of an independent press. I also wonder how much of this went on under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc.
Today's installment: seems that one of the White House correspondents who Bush calls on a lot is there because he's a right-wing journalist who asks softball questions. The culprit is Jeff Gannon of TalonNews.com, and his questions involve the occasional reference to Democratic leaders being "divorced from reality" and the occasional comparison of John Kerry to Jane Fonda. And while the most pressing issue here is undoubtedly the scary thought of a John Kerry exercise video (to the left! to the right! to the left! to the right!), it's still worrisome that the Bush White House is so scared of the media that they want to control even the mood in the press room. Seriously, I don't know that there's been any administration this paranoid since Nixon.
The Boston Globe has the story here, but I think it runs out tomorrow and you have to pay for it. A simple Web search on "Jeff Gannon" oughta reveal something, or I can e-mail you the article.
Today's installment: seems that one of the White House correspondents who Bush calls on a lot is there because he's a right-wing journalist who asks softball questions. The culprit is Jeff Gannon of TalonNews.com, and his questions involve the occasional reference to Democratic leaders being "divorced from reality" and the occasional comparison of John Kerry to Jane Fonda. And while the most pressing issue here is undoubtedly the scary thought of a John Kerry exercise video (to the left! to the right! to the left! to the right!), it's still worrisome that the Bush White House is so scared of the media that they want to control even the mood in the press room. Seriously, I don't know that there's been any administration this paranoid since Nixon.
The Boston Globe has the story here, but I think it runs out tomorrow and you have to pay for it. A simple Web search on "Jeff Gannon" oughta reveal something, or I can e-mail you the article.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
I Never Thought I'd Say This...
Since my mom is a Longhorn alumna, I never thought I'd find myself lauding Texas A&M for anything. But after reading a tidbit in The Nation today, I think I have to.
A&M is famous, among other things, for refusing to consider race as a factor in its admissions. A couple of years ago, A&M took a novel approach to increasing diversity on its campus - it got rid of legacy admissions and began recruiting from urban poor areas. The result: A&M saw increases in all minority enrollment, including a 47% increase for black students. At the same time, the University of Michigan, whose affirmative-action program for undergraduate admissions was nixed by Gratz v. Bollinger, saw an 18% decrease in minority enrollment.
A&M, almost certainly unwittingly, has put forth a new model for affirmative action in admissions: get rid of all preferences and recruit the poor. Let's hope other colleges follow suit.
A&M is famous, among other things, for refusing to consider race as a factor in its admissions. A couple of years ago, A&M took a novel approach to increasing diversity on its campus - it got rid of legacy admissions and began recruiting from urban poor areas. The result: A&M saw increases in all minority enrollment, including a 47% increase for black students. At the same time, the University of Michigan, whose affirmative-action program for undergraduate admissions was nixed by Gratz v. Bollinger, saw an 18% decrease in minority enrollment.
A&M, almost certainly unwittingly, has put forth a new model for affirmative action in admissions: get rid of all preferences and recruit the poor. Let's hope other colleges follow suit.
Good Luck
ONAF hereby gives its heartfelt best wishes to the Iraqis who are voting as we speak. Since I know my blessing is so important to them.
Adventures In Controlling The Media, Part 3
From my father comes this disturbing news:
"Maybe you could give some space to the recent flap over PBS and Margaret Spelling, the new Secretary of non-Education. She apparently muscled PBS not to air a show that might indicate that a child that is growing up in a same-sex parental household can be healthy, happy, well-adjusted, and even normal. Apparently, the PBS poohbahs decided earlier, before the Secretary could threaten the purse-string threat, that the 'message' was not appropriate. That whole thing stinks of prior restraints on free speech - just as beginners."
Post TV columnist Lisa de Moraes gives it a more in-depth look here. She describes the claim that PBS had already pulled the episode as how it "sounds great if you were born yesterday; otherwise, not so much."
And yet, the DoE spokesperson has the gall to say that, regarding the nature of material shown to children, "It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers." Um, pardon me, but aren't you, the government, deciding what parents should show their kids by censoring the show? I'm sure the idea that one can give parents choices by limiting their choices makes sense... when you're on acid. And this is the Education Department? No wonder our education system sucks. The people at the top have no capacity for abstract thought.
So the Education Department is using its muscle to make sure that public television doesn't give our children gay (as esteemed social critic Homer Simpson would say). And they're paying off columnists to back No Child Left Behind. The naming of this department is becoming more Orwellian by the second.
At least it's amusing that Bush has chosen people named Paige and Spelling as Education Secretary.
"Maybe you could give some space to the recent flap over PBS and Margaret Spelling, the new Secretary of non-Education. She apparently muscled PBS not to air a show that might indicate that a child that is growing up in a same-sex parental household can be healthy, happy, well-adjusted, and even normal. Apparently, the PBS poohbahs decided earlier, before the Secretary could threaten the purse-string threat, that the 'message' was not appropriate. That whole thing stinks of prior restraints on free speech - just as beginners."
Post TV columnist Lisa de Moraes gives it a more in-depth look here. She describes the claim that PBS had already pulled the episode as how it "sounds great if you were born yesterday; otherwise, not so much."
And yet, the DoE spokesperson has the gall to say that, regarding the nature of material shown to children, "It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers." Um, pardon me, but aren't you, the government, deciding what parents should show their kids by censoring the show? I'm sure the idea that one can give parents choices by limiting their choices makes sense... when you're on acid. And this is the Education Department? No wonder our education system sucks. The people at the top have no capacity for abstract thought.
So the Education Department is using its muscle to make sure that public television doesn't give our children gay (as esteemed social critic Homer Simpson would say). And they're paying off columnists to back No Child Left Behind. The naming of this department is becoming more Orwellian by the second.
At least it's amusing that Bush has chosen people named Paige and Spelling as Education Secretary.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Gonzalez's Nomination
Alberto Gonzalez, as expected, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. He'll go before the full Senate either tomorrow or sometime next week. And, in a 55-45 Senate, he'll be approved, barring a well-organized filibuster.
I'm not entirely certain what to think about Gonzalez. On one hand, he did help draft the torture memo. But I wonder whether Gonzalez was more concerned about what was the interpretation of the law that would most help his client - Dubya - rather than the moral imperative. In that sense, I wonder if a lot of criticism towards Gonzalez is somewhat like calling a killer's defense lawyer a murderer. Indeed, Gonzalez seems to recognize that he'll no longer be serving just the President, but the people as a whole, and thus needs to make more broad-based decisions.
And I'm not sure that he's wrong when he says that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, legally speaking, to the Taliban/al Qaeda operatives. But I worry because he's still in this mindset that such detainees need to be treated more severely than, say, Germans during World War II - or if he's not, he's given no evidence to that effect. Gonzalez and this administration seem to believe that the war on terror can only be won by dragging ourselves down to the terrorists' moral level. I don't buy that.
Of course, the torture case specifically is kind of a tangent here. The detainees are, for the most part, Defense's territory, and the AG wouldn't really have final say over what happens to them. What the AG does have control over is how our own citizens are treated when arrested on terrorism charges. And if we extrapolate from the way Gonzalez approached the torture question, we can expect the continuation of Ashcroft's abuses; for if one believes moral sacrifices are required to win the war on terror any breach of the principles of our justice system can be justified. It is for this reason that I oppose Gonzalez's nomination.
Sadly, questions that approached civil liberties issues were either not asked by the senators or not reported by the torture-obsessed media. I admit that I don't know for sure whether Gonzalez would follow in Ashcroft's footsteps. He may surprise me, but I doubt it.
That having been said, I think Democrats should save their filibustering for a Supreme Court nomination. Block Gonzalez, and you end up with some other right-winger. Save it for somewhere where it would do some good.
I'm not entirely certain what to think about Gonzalez. On one hand, he did help draft the torture memo. But I wonder whether Gonzalez was more concerned about what was the interpretation of the law that would most help his client - Dubya - rather than the moral imperative. In that sense, I wonder if a lot of criticism towards Gonzalez is somewhat like calling a killer's defense lawyer a murderer. Indeed, Gonzalez seems to recognize that he'll no longer be serving just the President, but the people as a whole, and thus needs to make more broad-based decisions.
And I'm not sure that he's wrong when he says that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, legally speaking, to the Taliban/al Qaeda operatives. But I worry because he's still in this mindset that such detainees need to be treated more severely than, say, Germans during World War II - or if he's not, he's given no evidence to that effect. Gonzalez and this administration seem to believe that the war on terror can only be won by dragging ourselves down to the terrorists' moral level. I don't buy that.
Of course, the torture case specifically is kind of a tangent here. The detainees are, for the most part, Defense's territory, and the AG wouldn't really have final say over what happens to them. What the AG does have control over is how our own citizens are treated when arrested on terrorism charges. And if we extrapolate from the way Gonzalez approached the torture question, we can expect the continuation of Ashcroft's abuses; for if one believes moral sacrifices are required to win the war on terror any breach of the principles of our justice system can be justified. It is for this reason that I oppose Gonzalez's nomination.
Sadly, questions that approached civil liberties issues were either not asked by the senators or not reported by the torture-obsessed media. I admit that I don't know for sure whether Gonzalez would follow in Ashcroft's footsteps. He may surprise me, but I doubt it.
That having been said, I think Democrats should save their filibustering for a Supreme Court nomination. Block Gonzalez, and you end up with some other right-winger. Save it for somewhere where it would do some good.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Oops, They Did It Again
When Armstrong Williams made the ominous claim that he wasn't the only writer under secret government contract to promote presidential initiatives, he wasn't kidding. Now there's Maggie Gallagher, who was being paid off by the Department of Health and Human Services. She was pushing Bush's welfare reform policies, "marriage strengthening" initiative, and gay-bashing. Howard Kurtz reports here.
Even the psychotically conservative National Review was annoyed that she didn't reveal the existence of her contract. Damn.
Even the psychotically conservative National Review was annoyed that she didn't reveal the existence of her contract. Damn.
Social Security Reform
In the upcoming days, I plan to address several of the issues Republicans - who have the power to set the agenda - are planning to bring before the country these next two years. They include simplifying the tax code, tort and malpractice reform, the creation of health care savings accounts, and others. Today, though, I'm dealing with Social Security/Medicare, since it's the hot-button issue out there.
Republicans are telling us Social Security is about to go down the tubes. Democrats tell us that everything's hunky-dory, so why bother? Of course, we sentient beings realize that neither side is being forthcoming with us. Social Security is in trouble, but it's not immediate trouble. In fact, if medical costs remain inflated, Medicare is likely to go bust before Social Security.
So let's look at the Republicans' plan. They want to divert payroll tax funds into private accounts, essentially setting up a mandatory retirement fund. This will create a $2 trillion cost over the first decade - but alleviating what supporters say will be a $11.2 trillion cost down the road (according to Cato, anyway).
It seems to me, though, that this is a fairly absurd plan. It is a dishonest attempt to gut the Social Security system. If you have it in for Social Security, as Republicans seem to, you should have the courage to eliminate the payroll tax and do away with the whole system. As it is, Republicans have come up with something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Who's going to manage these accounts, anyway? If we're going to manage them ourselves, why not just give us a payroll tax cut and let us do what we want with the money we get? And what sense would it make to have the government manage them? Couldn't the government just start investing money anyway without all this hullaballoo about "starting private accounts"?
(Of course, because of our deficit, that would lead to the somewhat amusing situation of our government issuing bonds to get money to invest. I wonder what would happen if the government invested in its own bonds - would everything disappear in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams would say?)
It seems to me there are solutions that allow us to save Social Security without destroying it. My favorite idea is reorganizing the ridiculously regressive payroll tax, thus making the system fairer and raising the money to save the system. Right now, Social Security is an upward redistribution scheme - taking money from the working class and giving it to the richest segment of the population. Another possibility is to cut benefits to the financially independent elderly, making Social Security a need-based program.
Anyway, that's my take on it. More ideas as they come to me.
Republicans are telling us Social Security is about to go down the tubes. Democrats tell us that everything's hunky-dory, so why bother? Of course, we sentient beings realize that neither side is being forthcoming with us. Social Security is in trouble, but it's not immediate trouble. In fact, if medical costs remain inflated, Medicare is likely to go bust before Social Security.
So let's look at the Republicans' plan. They want to divert payroll tax funds into private accounts, essentially setting up a mandatory retirement fund. This will create a $2 trillion cost over the first decade - but alleviating what supporters say will be a $11.2 trillion cost down the road (according to Cato, anyway).
It seems to me, though, that this is a fairly absurd plan. It is a dishonest attempt to gut the Social Security system. If you have it in for Social Security, as Republicans seem to, you should have the courage to eliminate the payroll tax and do away with the whole system. As it is, Republicans have come up with something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Who's going to manage these accounts, anyway? If we're going to manage them ourselves, why not just give us a payroll tax cut and let us do what we want with the money we get? And what sense would it make to have the government manage them? Couldn't the government just start investing money anyway without all this hullaballoo about "starting private accounts"?
(Of course, because of our deficit, that would lead to the somewhat amusing situation of our government issuing bonds to get money to invest. I wonder what would happen if the government invested in its own bonds - would everything disappear in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams would say?)
It seems to me there are solutions that allow us to save Social Security without destroying it. My favorite idea is reorganizing the ridiculously regressive payroll tax, thus making the system fairer and raising the money to save the system. Right now, Social Security is an upward redistribution scheme - taking money from the working class and giving it to the richest segment of the population. Another possibility is to cut benefits to the financially independent elderly, making Social Security a need-based program.
Anyway, that's my take on it. More ideas as they come to me.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Quick Hitters
I've heard unconfirmed reports that Fuel lead vocalist Brett Scallion dropped the F-bomb at one of Bush's inaugural balls. If it's true, it's hilarious - anyone know?
Also, slightly more confirmed reports that James "Focus On This, Bitch" Dobson has declared SpongeBob to be gay. What Dobson has failed to realize is that sponges reproduce either remotely or asexually, so they don't actually have sex, per se. Plus, why is Dobson thinking about SpongeBob's sex life anyway? What kind of person sits up at night wondering if SpongeBob gets laid, and by whom? Does Dobson get way too excited about doing the dishes and cleaning the bathroom?
Also, slightly more confirmed reports that James "Focus On This, Bitch" Dobson has declared SpongeBob to be gay. What Dobson has failed to realize is that sponges reproduce either remotely or asexually, so they don't actually have sex, per se. Plus, why is Dobson thinking about SpongeBob's sex life anyway? What kind of person sits up at night wondering if SpongeBob gets laid, and by whom? Does Dobson get way too excited about doing the dishes and cleaning the bathroom?
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Time To Be Obnoxious
For some reason, I subscribe to Time magazine. In their January 24th issue, Time featured a cover story on twentysomethings (that's us) who apparently refuse to grow up. The article is here. My response, which will never get printed because it's way too long, is posted here.
Dear editor,
In my 23 years, I have never read a “journalistic” article that missed the point as severely as your January 24th piece “Grow Up? Not So Fast.” Your writer, Lev Grossman, seems to believe that America’s twentysomethings are irresponsible for not finding good jobs and settling down. This comes from a member of the generation that outsourced or downsized all the well-paying jobs, replaced the union system with the Wal-Mart system, and turned the concept of job security into some quaint ephemeral ideal. Not to mention his is the generation that is more concerned with Social Security’s solvency than with the epidemic of youth poverty and that his is the generation that has caused college tuitions to skyrocket, burying us under mountains of student loans. And while Mr. Grossman alluded to the economic reasons for staying at home and not starting families, he still believes that irresponsibility is at the center of our actions.
The younger generation is, for the most part, left with low-paying jobs well into their twenties. Those of us with stable family backgrounds face the following decision: live at home for free and save up what money we can, or let our low salaries and high costs of living drive us into destitution. It seems to me that staying at home and saving up is the responsible choice. And we marry and have children later because we want to wait to start a family until we can afford it. How irresponsible of us.
But lest we still believe that the younger generations are “irresponsible,” let us take a look at the actions of the so-called “responsible” generations that preceded us:
- Under the leadership of presidents from the World War II generation and the Baby Boomer generation, our government has run up a national debt of $5 trillion and counting. Such spending habits have severely jeopardized our economic solvency. How responsible.
- Members of the World War II and Baby Boomer generations married early – and ended fifty percent of those marriages in divorce. How responsible.
- Older generations spend on frivolous luxury goods instead of saving; the national savings rate is currently the lowest it has been since the Depression, and the average credit card debt per family is $7,000. Apparently, older generations opted to buy that third shiny new SUV and pay for it later instead of saving some money for future expenses such as, say, helping their kids out after they leave college. To the Boomers, it’s more important to show up the neighbors than to be financially secure. How responsible.
Responsibility is living within your means. Responsibility is saving money for tomorrow’s possible disasters. Responsibility is buying a house when you find a steady job, no matter how long it takes. Responsibility is raising children once you can afford it. Responsibility is buying something when you have the money instead of using the credit card. Responsibility is planning for the future while enjoying the present. We know what responsibility is. If Boomers want to see what irresponsibility is, they need not look past their mirrors.
Sincerely,
Jeff Woodhead
Cary, NC
Dear editor,
In my 23 years, I have never read a “journalistic” article that missed the point as severely as your January 24th piece “Grow Up? Not So Fast.” Your writer, Lev Grossman, seems to believe that America’s twentysomethings are irresponsible for not finding good jobs and settling down. This comes from a member of the generation that outsourced or downsized all the well-paying jobs, replaced the union system with the Wal-Mart system, and turned the concept of job security into some quaint ephemeral ideal. Not to mention his is the generation that is more concerned with Social Security’s solvency than with the epidemic of youth poverty and that his is the generation that has caused college tuitions to skyrocket, burying us under mountains of student loans. And while Mr. Grossman alluded to the economic reasons for staying at home and not starting families, he still believes that irresponsibility is at the center of our actions.
The younger generation is, for the most part, left with low-paying jobs well into their twenties. Those of us with stable family backgrounds face the following decision: live at home for free and save up what money we can, or let our low salaries and high costs of living drive us into destitution. It seems to me that staying at home and saving up is the responsible choice. And we marry and have children later because we want to wait to start a family until we can afford it. How irresponsible of us.
But lest we still believe that the younger generations are “irresponsible,” let us take a look at the actions of the so-called “responsible” generations that preceded us:
- Under the leadership of presidents from the World War II generation and the Baby Boomer generation, our government has run up a national debt of $5 trillion and counting. Such spending habits have severely jeopardized our economic solvency. How responsible.
- Members of the World War II and Baby Boomer generations married early – and ended fifty percent of those marriages in divorce. How responsible.
- Older generations spend on frivolous luxury goods instead of saving; the national savings rate is currently the lowest it has been since the Depression, and the average credit card debt per family is $7,000. Apparently, older generations opted to buy that third shiny new SUV and pay for it later instead of saving some money for future expenses such as, say, helping their kids out after they leave college. To the Boomers, it’s more important to show up the neighbors than to be financially secure. How responsible.
Responsibility is living within your means. Responsibility is saving money for tomorrow’s possible disasters. Responsibility is buying a house when you find a steady job, no matter how long it takes. Responsibility is raising children once you can afford it. Responsibility is buying something when you have the money instead of using the credit card. Responsibility is planning for the future while enjoying the present. We know what responsibility is. If Boomers want to see what irresponsibility is, they need not look past their mirrors.
Sincerely,
Jeff Woodhead
Cary, NC
Saturday, January 15, 2005
The New "Compassion"
Happy birthday, Dr. King.
I've been reading a lot of articles recently on the world's responses to the tsunami. I haven't written anything about it, but here's a trend I've been noticing:
National governments are in a bidding war to win the PR boost that comes from pledging the most money. The U.S. government seems to want to give money so that its image in the Muslim world improves. Relief organizations seem to have their alterior motives - one Christian group wanted to "provide entrance for the Gospel" in predominantly Muslim Aceh. Muslim groups fought back. An ugly battle ensued. (Read the Post article here.)
(And to the Christians out there - yes, I understand that y'all see the spreading of the Gospel as an act of compassion. But the WorldHelp guy seems like he's using Acehnese orphans primarily as pawns to spread Christianity instead of providing them with a home because it's the good Christian thing to do, and that's sickening to me.)
Which makes me wonder: what the hell happened to compassion for compassion's sake? How about helping people not because you want to look good, or because you want to advance your foreign policy goals, or because you want to spread your religion, but helping because someone's home and family just got wiped out by a big ass wall of water?
Maybe most people and organizations are helping out of the goodness of their hearts, and the ones with alterior motives are the ones who get the press. I guess I'm just bitter. It reminds me of Christmas in a weird sort of way - somehow, our worth as people and as countries is measured by how much we give, and that kind of defeats the purpose of generosity.
I've been reading a lot of articles recently on the world's responses to the tsunami. I haven't written anything about it, but here's a trend I've been noticing:
National governments are in a bidding war to win the PR boost that comes from pledging the most money. The U.S. government seems to want to give money so that its image in the Muslim world improves. Relief organizations seem to have their alterior motives - one Christian group wanted to "provide entrance for the Gospel" in predominantly Muslim Aceh. Muslim groups fought back. An ugly battle ensued. (Read the Post article here.)
(And to the Christians out there - yes, I understand that y'all see the spreading of the Gospel as an act of compassion. But the WorldHelp guy seems like he's using Acehnese orphans primarily as pawns to spread Christianity instead of providing them with a home because it's the good Christian thing to do, and that's sickening to me.)
Which makes me wonder: what the hell happened to compassion for compassion's sake? How about helping people not because you want to look good, or because you want to advance your foreign policy goals, or because you want to spread your religion, but helping because someone's home and family just got wiped out by a big ass wall of water?
Maybe most people and organizations are helping out of the goodness of their hearts, and the ones with alterior motives are the ones who get the press. I guess I'm just bitter. It reminds me of Christmas in a weird sort of way - somehow, our worth as people and as countries is measured by how much we give, and that kind of defeats the purpose of generosity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)