On Monday, a ballot initiative repealing the death penalty in California qualified for the November ballot. This is good news. If the ballot measure passes -- and there's no reason to think it won't, since even a growing number of conservatives have thrown their support behind it -- California will become the 18th state to ban the death penalty in recent years. I pray that this positive momentum continues. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that has no place in a truly civilized society.
I have been against the death penalty for many years, but it wasn't always so. In my 20s, I bought into the old Republican/conservative argument that those on Death Row were there because they had earned their place among the condemned. I told anyone who would listen that I didn't want to pay to support these scumbags for the rest of their natural lives. Then I began to think.
I have always considered myself pro-life. I'm against abortion in 90 percent of cases (though I'm still undecided on the "Big Three" exceptions.) But how can I call myself pro-life and condone the death penalty? If all life is valuable, what right do I have to decide that some life is more valuable than others? Could I really pull the switch, or put a needle in someone's arm and end their life? The answer to that last question is no. I realized, as a Christian, I could not, in good conscience, condone what is basically state-sanctioned murder.
But my objection to the death penalty goes well beyond my personal morality. The death penalty is kind of like Communism. It looks good on paper and sounds good in theory, but in real-world conditions, it just doesn't work.
The death penalty is supposed to be the ultimate deterrent. It's supposed to scare people enough that violent crime is reduced. It hasn't worked. America today is as violent and deadly as it has ever been.
In reality, the death penalty is often imposed, but rarely carried out. In California, only 13 Death Row inmates have been executed in the past 23 years. In my old home state of Tennessee, there have been only two executions carried out since 1960. The truth is, Death Row inmates are more likely to die of old age before they ever see their sentences carried out
There's the cost. In California, it costs the state an extra $180 million a year to maintain Death Row, as opposed to simply sentencing the inmates to life without parole.
And there's always the possibility that someone is sitting on Death Row who truly is innocent. According to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org), there have been 289 post-conviction exonerations (covering all crimes) since 1989. There have been 222 exonerations since 2000 alone. Of those, 17 served time on Death Row. In my mind, if even one innocent person is wrongly executed, the whole system is bankrupt and should be scrapped.
As a nation and as a society, America should be well past the need for this "Wild West" justice. Apparently, more and more states are coming to that conclusion and scrapping this barbaric practice. It does my heart good to see that long-overdue reversal. It's about time.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Could Geraldo be right?
I saw a news story about the Trayvon Martin shooting over the weekend that gave me pause. In it, former talk show host, now Fox News contributor, Geraldo Rivera, claimed that the "hoodie" worn by Martin on the day of his death was somehow responsible for the shooting.
I have very little respect for Geraldo when it comes to being a legitimate journalist. Every time I see him, I automatically think of his network special in the 1980s about the contents of Al Capone's safe. As I recall, after an hour of hype, it was opened and found to be empty. When I see him, I can't help but think of his sleazy talk show from when I was growing up, in which he highlighted the very basest aspects of human nature, with shows featuring Nazi skinheads and the like. Geraldo was Jerry Springer before Jerry Springer. The fact that he now has reinvented himself as a legitimate journalist on a real news network is laughable, at best.
But you know what? As much as I hate to admit it, Geraldo actually made a legitimate point in his comments about the Martin shooting. In a nutshell, what he said was that Martin's hoodie played a role in his death because it has become associated with criminal activity. When people see someone wearing a hoodie, he said, they automatically assume the wearer is up to no good.
Do I think Martin's hoodie is solely responsible for his death? Of course not. Like the reformed talk show host he is, Geraldo has seized on one small aspect of this tragedy and exploited it for headlines. But he is correct that certain objects in our society carry certain meanings, right or wrong. A Confederate battle flag, for instance, is today widely viewed as a racist symbol because it has been appropriated as a banner by the Ku Klux Klan and other "white power" groups. But not everyone who flies the flag is a racist. Many Southerners fly it to legitimately pay homage to their ancestors. Today, youths who wear baggy pants, or who let them hang down below their hips, are often considered to be gang members. But not every youth who enjoys the fashion is in a gang. And not every person who wears a hoodie is a criminal.
I don't know if George Zimmerman, the accused shooter in this tragedy, is a racist. According to the account given by Martin's girlfriend -- that Martin was followed, then stopped and asked "what he was doing there," before being shot -- it would certainly seem so. But Zimmerman is claiming that he was attacked, that he acted in self-defense.
We may never know the truth about what happened that day. And barring the revelation of conclusive proof one way or the other, I am reluctant to call Zimmerman a crook. Still, I believe we can, and should, learn from this tragedy, lest Trayvon Martin die in vain.
We can start by examining our deepest held prejudices. I'm talking about prejudices so deep, we may not even know that we hold them: the belief that those who wear hoodies or baggy pants are criminals. The belief that those who fly the Confederate battle flag are automatically racist. The belief that young black men walking through gated communities, or driving a nice car, are automatically up to no good.
I don't have the answer to how we rid our society of such cancerous beliefs. What I do know is that holding these beliefs is not OK, even if we never act on them. If the death of Trayvon Martin has taught us anything, it's that we must bring our prejudices out into the open. We must work to obliterate them from this, and future generations. Failure to do so can have tragic results. In that sense, and ONLY in that sense, Geraldo was right.
I have very little respect for Geraldo when it comes to being a legitimate journalist. Every time I see him, I automatically think of his network special in the 1980s about the contents of Al Capone's safe. As I recall, after an hour of hype, it was opened and found to be empty. When I see him, I can't help but think of his sleazy talk show from when I was growing up, in which he highlighted the very basest aspects of human nature, with shows featuring Nazi skinheads and the like. Geraldo was Jerry Springer before Jerry Springer. The fact that he now has reinvented himself as a legitimate journalist on a real news network is laughable, at best.
But you know what? As much as I hate to admit it, Geraldo actually made a legitimate point in his comments about the Martin shooting. In a nutshell, what he said was that Martin's hoodie played a role in his death because it has become associated with criminal activity. When people see someone wearing a hoodie, he said, they automatically assume the wearer is up to no good.
Do I think Martin's hoodie is solely responsible for his death? Of course not. Like the reformed talk show host he is, Geraldo has seized on one small aspect of this tragedy and exploited it for headlines. But he is correct that certain objects in our society carry certain meanings, right or wrong. A Confederate battle flag, for instance, is today widely viewed as a racist symbol because it has been appropriated as a banner by the Ku Klux Klan and other "white power" groups. But not everyone who flies the flag is a racist. Many Southerners fly it to legitimately pay homage to their ancestors. Today, youths who wear baggy pants, or who let them hang down below their hips, are often considered to be gang members. But not every youth who enjoys the fashion is in a gang. And not every person who wears a hoodie is a criminal.
I don't know if George Zimmerman, the accused shooter in this tragedy, is a racist. According to the account given by Martin's girlfriend -- that Martin was followed, then stopped and asked "what he was doing there," before being shot -- it would certainly seem so. But Zimmerman is claiming that he was attacked, that he acted in self-defense.
We may never know the truth about what happened that day. And barring the revelation of conclusive proof one way or the other, I am reluctant to call Zimmerman a crook. Still, I believe we can, and should, learn from this tragedy, lest Trayvon Martin die in vain.
We can start by examining our deepest held prejudices. I'm talking about prejudices so deep, we may not even know that we hold them: the belief that those who wear hoodies or baggy pants are criminals. The belief that those who fly the Confederate battle flag are automatically racist. The belief that young black men walking through gated communities, or driving a nice car, are automatically up to no good.
I don't have the answer to how we rid our society of such cancerous beliefs. What I do know is that holding these beliefs is not OK, even if we never act on them. If the death of Trayvon Martin has taught us anything, it's that we must bring our prejudices out into the open. We must work to obliterate them from this, and future generations. Failure to do so can have tragic results. In that sense, and ONLY in that sense, Geraldo was right.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Catching up on current events
It's been a busy news week on the political front, so I thought I would give my thoughts on several of the most interesting developments that caught my attention.
California court strikes down gay marriage ban: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2008 which banned gay marriage in the state. Overturning the ill-conceived and unfair ban was the right decision. Let's hope the full appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, leaves this decision alone.
Gay marriage is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. Frankly, I don't understand what all the complaining is about. Allowing gay couples to get married and recognizing them as actual "marriages" under the law does no harm to existing marriages. It does not, as opponents claim, do irreparable harm to the "institution of marriage." Half of marriages in the United States already end in divorce -- and that's among straight couples. On the other hand, many gay couples have relationships that last years -- even decades. It seems to me that allowing gay couples to get married would do no more harm to the "institution of marriage" than we straight folks are already doing to it ourselves.
The issue of gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, as some like to imagine it. This is a matter of simple fairness. Gay couples who are committed to each other should be allowed to leave their property to their partners. They should be treated as family during hospital stays. And they should be allowed to provide health insurance for each other. In short, they should enjoy every right that their heterosexual bretheren take for granted. To deny them those rights is simply bigotry. It has no place in a free society.
Newt Gingrich, closet racist?: Once again, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has shown that he is unfit to be the next president of the United States. In fact, his remarks in recent days have shown he is unfit to hold any elected office at all.
In recent debates and at campaign stops around the country, Gingrich has been deriding President Barack Obama as "the food stamp president." He claims that more Americans have been put on food stamps under Obama than any president in history. He's even applied the label to his chief rival, Mitt Romney, dubbing him "Little Food Stamp."
This latest tactic by Gingrich is as disgusting as it is factually wrong. Yes, the number of people eligible for food stamps has significantly expanded over the past decade. Today, about one of every seven Americans is eligible for food stamp assistance. But that expansion began during the administration of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, a Republican. And although 14.2 million Americans have become eligible for food stamps under Obama, that's still nearly half a million less than those that became eligible under Baby Bush.
Some have labeled Gingrich's attacks as racist. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. What I do think, though, is that they show a lack of compassion that is common to a significant number in today's Republican Party.
Food stamps are not "wrong," as Gingrich seems to think. Millions of Americans count on them to provide food for themselves and their families every day. Without them, millions of Americans would go hungry every night. If we get rid of the program, as Gingrich seems to want to do, what would we replace it with to make sure people don't starve?
The same kind of questions can be asked about other "safety net" programs such as welfare and Social Security. These programs aren't perfect. And yes, in programs this large, there are always going to be cases of abuse. But they are a way of providing something for the poorest Americans who have become either too old or infirm to work. They are a way of helping those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer help themselves. And isn't that what the Constitution provides for, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Obama and birth control: President Obama has come under fire this week for upholding a longstanding policy that requires employers (or at least those who employ more than 15 people) to offer coverage for birth control if they offer other prescription drug coverage. The policy was put in place in December 2000 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled that to offer prescription coverage without covering birth control violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The policy remained unchanged throughout the administration of George W. Bush, yet now, it has become a source of great concern for Republicans desperate to win the White House in 2012.
Republicans are now decrying the policy as unnecessary government intrusion. They're casting this as a matter of religious freedom, saying that people and companies that are opposed to birth control on religious grounds shouldn't be forced to cover it in their insurance policies. As per usual, GOP critics have their facts only about half right.
The policy being supported by Obama already provides exemptions for those who object on religious grounds. And by the way, where were all these critics when Baby Bush was in the White House? This policy has been the law of the land for more than a decade and the Republicans said nothing. It's only now, when the White House is up for grabs, that they are making an issue of this? How hypocritical.
The issue here isn't really one of religious freedom at all. The issue here is whether companies should help their female employees pay for birth control. The issue is whether women should remain in control of when and if they become pregnant. The answer, of course, is "yes" on both counts.
Republican objections to this common-sense policy are opportunistic at best, backward and hypocritical at worst. Republicans are the ones who have been fighting to repeal Roe v. Wade for almost four decades. They drone on endlessly about "the sanctity of life." Isn't it better to allow women and families to decide for themselves when to become pregnant than to encourage abortion by making it harder to obtain birth control, so that unintended and unwanted pregnancy is the more likely result?
For the record, I believe that abortion used as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible. With all the effective forms of birth control out there -- and with all the young couples desperate to have children -- there really is no excuse for it. But I also believe that the choice to have a family -- or not to have one -- should be left up to each woman and each family, without the input of government. This rule has worked well for more than a decade. This is one time when our politicians should back off, take a deep breath and just leave well enough alone.
California court strikes down gay marriage ban: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2008 which banned gay marriage in the state. Overturning the ill-conceived and unfair ban was the right decision. Let's hope the full appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, leaves this decision alone.
Gay marriage is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. Frankly, I don't understand what all the complaining is about. Allowing gay couples to get married and recognizing them as actual "marriages" under the law does no harm to existing marriages. It does not, as opponents claim, do irreparable harm to the "institution of marriage." Half of marriages in the United States already end in divorce -- and that's among straight couples. On the other hand, many gay couples have relationships that last years -- even decades. It seems to me that allowing gay couples to get married would do no more harm to the "institution of marriage" than we straight folks are already doing to it ourselves.
The issue of gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, as some like to imagine it. This is a matter of simple fairness. Gay couples who are committed to each other should be allowed to leave their property to their partners. They should be treated as family during hospital stays. And they should be allowed to provide health insurance for each other. In short, they should enjoy every right that their heterosexual bretheren take for granted. To deny them those rights is simply bigotry. It has no place in a free society.
Newt Gingrich, closet racist?: Once again, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has shown that he is unfit to be the next president of the United States. In fact, his remarks in recent days have shown he is unfit to hold any elected office at all.
In recent debates and at campaign stops around the country, Gingrich has been deriding President Barack Obama as "the food stamp president." He claims that more Americans have been put on food stamps under Obama than any president in history. He's even applied the label to his chief rival, Mitt Romney, dubbing him "Little Food Stamp."
This latest tactic by Gingrich is as disgusting as it is factually wrong. Yes, the number of people eligible for food stamps has significantly expanded over the past decade. Today, about one of every seven Americans is eligible for food stamp assistance. But that expansion began during the administration of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, a Republican. And although 14.2 million Americans have become eligible for food stamps under Obama, that's still nearly half a million less than those that became eligible under Baby Bush.
Some have labeled Gingrich's attacks as racist. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. What I do think, though, is that they show a lack of compassion that is common to a significant number in today's Republican Party.
Food stamps are not "wrong," as Gingrich seems to think. Millions of Americans count on them to provide food for themselves and their families every day. Without them, millions of Americans would go hungry every night. If we get rid of the program, as Gingrich seems to want to do, what would we replace it with to make sure people don't starve?
The same kind of questions can be asked about other "safety net" programs such as welfare and Social Security. These programs aren't perfect. And yes, in programs this large, there are always going to be cases of abuse. But they are a way of providing something for the poorest Americans who have become either too old or infirm to work. They are a way of helping those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer help themselves. And isn't that what the Constitution provides for, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Obama and birth control: President Obama has come under fire this week for upholding a longstanding policy that requires employers (or at least those who employ more than 15 people) to offer coverage for birth control if they offer other prescription drug coverage. The policy was put in place in December 2000 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled that to offer prescription coverage without covering birth control violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The policy remained unchanged throughout the administration of George W. Bush, yet now, it has become a source of great concern for Republicans desperate to win the White House in 2012.
Republicans are now decrying the policy as unnecessary government intrusion. They're casting this as a matter of religious freedom, saying that people and companies that are opposed to birth control on religious grounds shouldn't be forced to cover it in their insurance policies. As per usual, GOP critics have their facts only about half right.
The policy being supported by Obama already provides exemptions for those who object on religious grounds. And by the way, where were all these critics when Baby Bush was in the White House? This policy has been the law of the land for more than a decade and the Republicans said nothing. It's only now, when the White House is up for grabs, that they are making an issue of this? How hypocritical.
The issue here isn't really one of religious freedom at all. The issue here is whether companies should help their female employees pay for birth control. The issue is whether women should remain in control of when and if they become pregnant. The answer, of course, is "yes" on both counts.
Republican objections to this common-sense policy are opportunistic at best, backward and hypocritical at worst. Republicans are the ones who have been fighting to repeal Roe v. Wade for almost four decades. They drone on endlessly about "the sanctity of life." Isn't it better to allow women and families to decide for themselves when to become pregnant than to encourage abortion by making it harder to obtain birth control, so that unintended and unwanted pregnancy is the more likely result?
For the record, I believe that abortion used as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible. With all the effective forms of birth control out there -- and with all the young couples desperate to have children -- there really is no excuse for it. But I also believe that the choice to have a family -- or not to have one -- should be left up to each woman and each family, without the input of government. This rule has worked well for more than a decade. This is one time when our politicians should back off, take a deep breath and just leave well enough alone.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Goodbye Michele Bachmann, and good riddance
One of the best pieces of news I've heard since I started following the 2012 presidential race is that Michele Bachmann, the loudmouth, overambitious congresswoman from Minnesota, has dropped out of the race following a disappointing showing in the Iowa caucuses last week. Now, let me be very clear. I don't dislike Bachmann because she is a woman. And I have no problem with ambitious women. Heck, if Barack Obama hadn't been in the race four years ago, I would have been happy to vote for Hillary Clinton (if for no other reason than to get another Clinton in the White House and see how Bill would have performed as First Spouse). No, I didn't like Bachmann because I felt that she added nothing of substance to this race. And given the massive problems facing our nation and our world, this is hardly a time for candidates lacking substance.
The more I studied Bachmann, the less I saw to like. In every debate I've seen her in, she has struggled for the moderator's attention. And on the rare occasions when she was called on to answer a question, she struggled to do even that with any real clarity. I was left with the impression that she didn't have a real grasp on the issues. Worse, I was left with the impression that she was in this race to stroke her own ego, not to actually serve her country.
I guess I shouldn't really be surprised by her poor showing on the national stage. Bachmann is a relative newcomer to national politics, having only been in Congress for the past five years. And what has she accomplished during her time in Washington? Not much, unless you count helping to found the Tea Party Caucus and becoming its spokesperson. I can't think of a single bill that she has either co-sponsored or sponsored. And certainly nothing that she's passed. Again, it's all about ego with Bachmann.
The rise and swift fall of Bachmann is a great example of what's wrong with this nation's political system. Look at who we have left in the Republican field: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Perry, Paul and Huntsman. Of those, at least three can be written off as being in the race because they're addicted to the spotlight (Gingrich, Santorum and Perry). While Ron Paul actually makes sense on a number of issues and enjoys a solid base of support, his extreme positions make him virtually unelectable by a largely moderate electorate. And Jon Huntsman remains largely an enigma, since he has been largely absent in this race.
That leaves Romney as the only serious contender in the GOP field. And what kind of choice does that leave GOP voters really?
Our country is facing a series of very serious problems and a troubled future at best. And yet, the GOP field is littered with egomaniacs and people who don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ever seeing the White House. This is a time when we need serious candidates with real ideas and the ability to steer our country down the right path. In these troubled times, where have all the serious candidates gone?
The more I studied Bachmann, the less I saw to like. In every debate I've seen her in, she has struggled for the moderator's attention. And on the rare occasions when she was called on to answer a question, she struggled to do even that with any real clarity. I was left with the impression that she didn't have a real grasp on the issues. Worse, I was left with the impression that she was in this race to stroke her own ego, not to actually serve her country.
I guess I shouldn't really be surprised by her poor showing on the national stage. Bachmann is a relative newcomer to national politics, having only been in Congress for the past five years. And what has she accomplished during her time in Washington? Not much, unless you count helping to found the Tea Party Caucus and becoming its spokesperson. I can't think of a single bill that she has either co-sponsored or sponsored. And certainly nothing that she's passed. Again, it's all about ego with Bachmann.
The rise and swift fall of Bachmann is a great example of what's wrong with this nation's political system. Look at who we have left in the Republican field: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Perry, Paul and Huntsman. Of those, at least three can be written off as being in the race because they're addicted to the spotlight (Gingrich, Santorum and Perry). While Ron Paul actually makes sense on a number of issues and enjoys a solid base of support, his extreme positions make him virtually unelectable by a largely moderate electorate. And Jon Huntsman remains largely an enigma, since he has been largely absent in this race.
That leaves Romney as the only serious contender in the GOP field. And what kind of choice does that leave GOP voters really?
Our country is facing a series of very serious problems and a troubled future at best. And yet, the GOP field is littered with egomaniacs and people who don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ever seeing the White House. This is a time when we need serious candidates with real ideas and the ability to steer our country down the right path. In these troubled times, where have all the serious candidates gone?
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Is it the end for Ron Paul?
You can always tell when Washington's political establishment feels threatened by the rise of someone new. In 2008, opponents of President Barack Obama pitched a certifiable fit over his alleged lack of citizenship in an attempt to disqualify him from the race. It was a debate that lingered until well into his presidency, when he finally produced a "long form" birth certificate and put the charges to rest. Just recently, Herman Cain, the former front-runner in this year's GOP field, was forced to bow out over charges that he made inappropriate sexual advances to several women while he was president of the National Restaurant Association. And now, there's the controversy surrounding another surprising contender, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul, a perennial presidential candidate and well-known libertarian, has enjoyed a surprisingly successful run this time around. As of Friday, he was actually leading in Iowa as that state's caucuses rapidly approach. Right on cue, there came allegations that Paul made racially inflammatory comments in newsletters published under his name during the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Granted, the comments highlighted in recent news reports are, to say the least, insensitive, if not outright racist. Among other things, a comment on the 1992 L.A. riots, said, in effect, that the violence would stop "when the blacks stopped to pick up their welfare checks." Another comment referenced a coming race war. But should those unfortunate comments be enough to knock Paul out of the race? I don't think so.
What makes this situation particularly distressing is Paul's surprisingly naive response, especially since he's such a veteran politician. In response to the allegations of racism, he has basically said that not only did he not write the comments, but he was unaware of them because he failed to read his own newsletter. Even worse, he failed to keep track of what was being written in his name. That seems almost inconceivable to me.
How can Paul, who has served honorably in Congress for more than a decade, be so tone-deaf to what his own people are writing in newsletters that are published under his name? Are we really to believe that he never reads his own newsletters?
If I were Paul, I would do much more than simply disavow the comments, as he did recently. The first thing he should do is find the people who made the comments. If they're still working for him, they should be fired. Lay down a rule that nothing is to go out in any newsletter with his name on it without explicit final approval from him. Then, call a news conference to address the comments directly. Let the media and the American people know exactly what his current stance is on race relations. Answer all questions directly. Then, it's time to move on.
Let me be very clear. I in no way like or support the kinds of comments being attributed to Paul in his newsletters. Personally, I think someone who holds such antiquated views has no place as the leader of the free world, or our richly diverse nation. But the comments aren't recent. They're all 20 years old or older. Even if he held those views at one time, there's no guarantee he still feels that way. People change, and Paul should be judged on who he is NOW, not who he was 20 years ago.
I don't believe Ron Paul will be our next president. I don't even believe he has a realistic shot to be the GOP nominee. But I do believe he is someone who has maintained consistent support among a sizable bloc of Americans over a long period of time. He is someone who, if you stop to listen to him, actually makes sense in a lot of what he says. He is a breath of fresh air in a field of largely stale, career politicians. And he deserves a chance to get his message out to the American people. It should be the voters, not the media, that should be the final judge of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.
Paul, a perennial presidential candidate and well-known libertarian, has enjoyed a surprisingly successful run this time around. As of Friday, he was actually leading in Iowa as that state's caucuses rapidly approach. Right on cue, there came allegations that Paul made racially inflammatory comments in newsletters published under his name during the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Granted, the comments highlighted in recent news reports are, to say the least, insensitive, if not outright racist. Among other things, a comment on the 1992 L.A. riots, said, in effect, that the violence would stop "when the blacks stopped to pick up their welfare checks." Another comment referenced a coming race war. But should those unfortunate comments be enough to knock Paul out of the race? I don't think so.
What makes this situation particularly distressing is Paul's surprisingly naive response, especially since he's such a veteran politician. In response to the allegations of racism, he has basically said that not only did he not write the comments, but he was unaware of them because he failed to read his own newsletter. Even worse, he failed to keep track of what was being written in his name. That seems almost inconceivable to me.
How can Paul, who has served honorably in Congress for more than a decade, be so tone-deaf to what his own people are writing in newsletters that are published under his name? Are we really to believe that he never reads his own newsletters?
If I were Paul, I would do much more than simply disavow the comments, as he did recently. The first thing he should do is find the people who made the comments. If they're still working for him, they should be fired. Lay down a rule that nothing is to go out in any newsletter with his name on it without explicit final approval from him. Then, call a news conference to address the comments directly. Let the media and the American people know exactly what his current stance is on race relations. Answer all questions directly. Then, it's time to move on.
Let me be very clear. I in no way like or support the kinds of comments being attributed to Paul in his newsletters. Personally, I think someone who holds such antiquated views has no place as the leader of the free world, or our richly diverse nation. But the comments aren't recent. They're all 20 years old or older. Even if he held those views at one time, there's no guarantee he still feels that way. People change, and Paul should be judged on who he is NOW, not who he was 20 years ago.
I don't believe Ron Paul will be our next president. I don't even believe he has a realistic shot to be the GOP nominee. But I do believe he is someone who has maintained consistent support among a sizable bloc of Americans over a long period of time. He is someone who, if you stop to listen to him, actually makes sense in a lot of what he says. He is a breath of fresh air in a field of largely stale, career politicians. And he deserves a chance to get his message out to the American people. It should be the voters, not the media, that should be the final judge of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
A day to remember
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the "day that will live in infamy," the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. While much has changed since that fateful day, I think it is important that we pause today to remember those who gave their lives on that Sunday morning and in the four years after. I think it is important to remember the lessons we should have learned from that world-altering experience.
The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States finally into the war that had gripped the world since Sept. 1, 1939, when Adolph Hitler overwhelmed Poland. At the end of that war, we had become the world's first nuclear power, and the undisputed superpower. It has been a position we have held ever since, though some would argue that we're beginning to slip from that lofty perch.
World War II is notable in that it is the last war we fought that was strictly constitutional and that was actually declared by Congress. We've had plenty of military engagements since then -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- but World War II was the last war where we were attacked first, and that was completely justified.
World War II also was notable because it ushered in the age of nuclear warfare. For the first time, we had created a weapon so powerful that we finally had the ability to destroy ourselves. It put an end to America's previous policy of isolationism. And it firmly established us as the world's most powerful nation.
Since that "infamous" day and the end of World War II, we have used that unbridled power to prevent the spread of communism (Korea, Vietnam) and to help others (removing Manuel Noriega in Panama and the first Gulf War). We have, in effect, become the world's police force. Every time there's a perceived injustice, America swoops in to save the day. That has engendered a lot of goodwill for America in many parts of the world. But have we learned anything from being the world's undisputed No. 1 for the past seven decades? I can think of several lessons we should have learned by now:
1. Creating the nuclear bomb may have been the biggest mistake we ever made: Energy considerations aside, I think any humane person can agree that creating the world's first nuclear weapon was a mistake. Many World War II vets have argued with me over the years, saying that "the bomb" saved thousands, if not millions, of lives, by putting a quick end to the war. That may be true. But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the truth is, we could have won the war without ever dropping the first bomb.
At the time of the first bombing, Allied forces were engaged in a campaign of "island hopping," and were approaching Tokyo. Allied forces in Europe were on the verge of capturing Berlin. It might have taken longer, but we could have won the war without slaughtering all those innocent women and children.
And what has the "nuclear age" brought us, in the long term? It was inevitable that other nations would eventually decipher our nuclear secrets. Today, there are five confirmed nuclear states, and three more that are known or believed to possess the weapons. Two of those states -- India and Pakistan -- are sworn enemies. The other -- North Korea -- is led by a reclusive dictator who is widely considered to be unstable. Our world is actually less safe than we were at the end of World War II. We are sitting on a powder keg, and it wouldn't take much for one of our enemies to light the match.
2. With great power comes great responsibility: In large part, I think the United States has done a good job of using its power responsibly. It's hard to argue with fighting to prevent the spread of communism or removing a diabolical dictator from power. But I believe the past decade since 9/11 has shown us the flip side of that equation.
It's not enough to just flex our muscles and remove a leader we don't like. If we're going to play nation-builder, we need to think things through. We need to plan. What happens after the dictator is gone? Are we prepared to stay in that country long-term and rebuild all that we've destroyed? Are we willing to intervene if a civil war breaks out between opposing groups? And how do we decide which countries to go into and which leaders to depose? There are a lot of dastardly dictators in the world. Are we going to get rid of all of them?
The key here is to establish some kind of standard. I have no problem with helping out other countries that can't help themselves. But we don't have the blood or the treasure available to us to fix every country's problem, and we shouldn't try. We have our own problems here at home that need attention before we traipse around the world trying to fix everyone else's.
3. Our veterans are an invaluable untapped resource. They deserve to be taken care of, and we should do all we can to learn from them: One of the things that makes my blood boil is how this country treats its veterans. It seems like every time there's a budget crisis in this country, veterans' benefits are among the first thing to go on the chopping block. That's wrong.
Our veterans have fought and sacrificed to make it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. Many, especially those from previous generations, were promised that if they would but serve their country, they would be taken care of with free medical care for the rest of their lives. That is a travesty. These brave men and women have earned the right to their benefits. They have sacrificed to take care of us. It is our obligation to take care of them.
I think it is incredibly important that we learn what we can from our veterans of past wars. Veterans are those who have stared death in the face and lived. They have seen the end result of the evil men do. Wouldn't it then benefit this current generation to learn from the mistakes of the past? I think today is a great day to sit down with our veterans and ask them to recount their experiences. And this is something that should be done every day. If we fail to take advantage of our veterans before they're gone. If we fail to learn the lessons they have to teach us, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. And that would be to everyone's detriment.
The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States finally into the war that had gripped the world since Sept. 1, 1939, when Adolph Hitler overwhelmed Poland. At the end of that war, we had become the world's first nuclear power, and the undisputed superpower. It has been a position we have held ever since, though some would argue that we're beginning to slip from that lofty perch.
World War II is notable in that it is the last war we fought that was strictly constitutional and that was actually declared by Congress. We've had plenty of military engagements since then -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- but World War II was the last war where we were attacked first, and that was completely justified.
World War II also was notable because it ushered in the age of nuclear warfare. For the first time, we had created a weapon so powerful that we finally had the ability to destroy ourselves. It put an end to America's previous policy of isolationism. And it firmly established us as the world's most powerful nation.
Since that "infamous" day and the end of World War II, we have used that unbridled power to prevent the spread of communism (Korea, Vietnam) and to help others (removing Manuel Noriega in Panama and the first Gulf War). We have, in effect, become the world's police force. Every time there's a perceived injustice, America swoops in to save the day. That has engendered a lot of goodwill for America in many parts of the world. But have we learned anything from being the world's undisputed No. 1 for the past seven decades? I can think of several lessons we should have learned by now:
1. Creating the nuclear bomb may have been the biggest mistake we ever made: Energy considerations aside, I think any humane person can agree that creating the world's first nuclear weapon was a mistake. Many World War II vets have argued with me over the years, saying that "the bomb" saved thousands, if not millions, of lives, by putting a quick end to the war. That may be true. But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the truth is, we could have won the war without ever dropping the first bomb.
At the time of the first bombing, Allied forces were engaged in a campaign of "island hopping," and were approaching Tokyo. Allied forces in Europe were on the verge of capturing Berlin. It might have taken longer, but we could have won the war without slaughtering all those innocent women and children.
And what has the "nuclear age" brought us, in the long term? It was inevitable that other nations would eventually decipher our nuclear secrets. Today, there are five confirmed nuclear states, and three more that are known or believed to possess the weapons. Two of those states -- India and Pakistan -- are sworn enemies. The other -- North Korea -- is led by a reclusive dictator who is widely considered to be unstable. Our world is actually less safe than we were at the end of World War II. We are sitting on a powder keg, and it wouldn't take much for one of our enemies to light the match.
2. With great power comes great responsibility: In large part, I think the United States has done a good job of using its power responsibly. It's hard to argue with fighting to prevent the spread of communism or removing a diabolical dictator from power. But I believe the past decade since 9/11 has shown us the flip side of that equation.
It's not enough to just flex our muscles and remove a leader we don't like. If we're going to play nation-builder, we need to think things through. We need to plan. What happens after the dictator is gone? Are we prepared to stay in that country long-term and rebuild all that we've destroyed? Are we willing to intervene if a civil war breaks out between opposing groups? And how do we decide which countries to go into and which leaders to depose? There are a lot of dastardly dictators in the world. Are we going to get rid of all of them?
The key here is to establish some kind of standard. I have no problem with helping out other countries that can't help themselves. But we don't have the blood or the treasure available to us to fix every country's problem, and we shouldn't try. We have our own problems here at home that need attention before we traipse around the world trying to fix everyone else's.
3. Our veterans are an invaluable untapped resource. They deserve to be taken care of, and we should do all we can to learn from them: One of the things that makes my blood boil is how this country treats its veterans. It seems like every time there's a budget crisis in this country, veterans' benefits are among the first thing to go on the chopping block. That's wrong.
Our veterans have fought and sacrificed to make it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. Many, especially those from previous generations, were promised that if they would but serve their country, they would be taken care of with free medical care for the rest of their lives. That is a travesty. These brave men and women have earned the right to their benefits. They have sacrificed to take care of us. It is our obligation to take care of them.
I think it is incredibly important that we learn what we can from our veterans of past wars. Veterans are those who have stared death in the face and lived. They have seen the end result of the evil men do. Wouldn't it then benefit this current generation to learn from the mistakes of the past? I think today is a great day to sit down with our veterans and ask them to recount their experiences. And this is something that should be done every day. If we fail to take advantage of our veterans before they're gone. If we fail to learn the lessons they have to teach us, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. And that would be to everyone's detriment.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
R.I.P. Herman Cain
It took a little longer than expected, but it should come as no surprise that former GOP front-runner Herman Cain bowed out of the presidential race last weekend. Cain was simply overwhelmed with the mounting allegations of sexual misconduct. And instead of dealing with them head-on, he continued to believe that by simply ignoring the charges, they would go away. That shows a shocking degree of naivete about how the national media and the national political scene works, and is just one reason Cain wasn't fit to occupy the White House. It's also a damning indicator of just how broken our current political system is.
I must admit, I watched with some fascination as Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, rose from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of vastly more experienced candidates. And make no mistake. Cain brought a lot to the table. He was as close to a political outsider as we're ever likely to see anymore. He's been active in politics behind the scenes for awhile. But other than a lone Congressional run in his home state of Georgia, he had no big-time political experience. That makes what he managed to accomplish even more remarkable.
Cain had perhaps the best backstory of any of the candidates. He beat stage 4 liver and colon cancer. His "9-9-9" tax plan, which called for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax, was fatally flawed and hoplessly regressive, unfairly penalizing the poorest Americans. But for awhile, it managed to stimulate a much-needed discussion on the shortcomings of our current tax code.
I have said from the beginning that, while Cain wasn't quite ready for prime time, he would make a great Cabinet secretary for someone someday. I've even touted him as a potential dark horse pick to be vice president. Now, unfortunately, due to the merciless "chew'em up and spit'em out" nature of our political system, that is unlikely to happen. What a shame.
Our current political system is broken. Once, not so long ago, candidates were allowed to have private lives, outside the glare of public scrutiny. Today, thanks to the advent of the 24-hour news channels and the explosion of the Internet, that's no longer so. And our entire country suffers as a result.
I understand that when you declare your candidacy for political office, particularly the presidency, you give up a large part of your status as a private citizen. And some of that increased scrutiny is justified. This is particularly true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown when he entered the race. Still, I think we've gone too far in our endless quest to get to "know" our candidates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I don't care who a candidate is sleeping with, or who he slept with in the past. If he's cheating on his spouse, it's really none of my business. That's a matter best left to be settled between a husband and a wife. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Likewise, if a candidate experimented with drugs or got a DUI when he was in college, so what? We all do stupid things we wish we hadn't in college. As long as the candidate is not currently addicted to drugs or alcohol, it shouldn't matter. What should matter to voters is who the candidate is NOW, not what he did 20 years ago.
With Cain's exit, we now are left with a field of professional politicians and Washington insiders. That's a shame. Cain was far from perfect. But he was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political scene. He had vast potential. Unfortunately, our current political system chewed him up and spit him out. That's going to continue to happen, so long as a bloodthirsty, tabloid-crazed public continues to lust after every scrap of information -- relevant or not -- about our politicians. Unless we learn to rein in that instinct and establish some realistic boundaries about what we have a right to know, pretty soon, new candidates will simply decide not to run. And who can blame them? We'll be left with the same flawed candidates and the same stale ideas. We'll be left to hold our nose, pull the lever and cast a vote, not for the best candidate, but for the "lesser of two evils." And our entire country will suffer as a result.
I must admit, I watched with some fascination as Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, rose from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of vastly more experienced candidates. And make no mistake. Cain brought a lot to the table. He was as close to a political outsider as we're ever likely to see anymore. He's been active in politics behind the scenes for awhile. But other than a lone Congressional run in his home state of Georgia, he had no big-time political experience. That makes what he managed to accomplish even more remarkable.
Cain had perhaps the best backstory of any of the candidates. He beat stage 4 liver and colon cancer. His "9-9-9" tax plan, which called for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax, was fatally flawed and hoplessly regressive, unfairly penalizing the poorest Americans. But for awhile, it managed to stimulate a much-needed discussion on the shortcomings of our current tax code.
I have said from the beginning that, while Cain wasn't quite ready for prime time, he would make a great Cabinet secretary for someone someday. I've even touted him as a potential dark horse pick to be vice president. Now, unfortunately, due to the merciless "chew'em up and spit'em out" nature of our political system, that is unlikely to happen. What a shame.
Our current political system is broken. Once, not so long ago, candidates were allowed to have private lives, outside the glare of public scrutiny. Today, thanks to the advent of the 24-hour news channels and the explosion of the Internet, that's no longer so. And our entire country suffers as a result.
I understand that when you declare your candidacy for political office, particularly the presidency, you give up a large part of your status as a private citizen. And some of that increased scrutiny is justified. This is particularly true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown when he entered the race. Still, I think we've gone too far in our endless quest to get to "know" our candidates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I don't care who a candidate is sleeping with, or who he slept with in the past. If he's cheating on his spouse, it's really none of my business. That's a matter best left to be settled between a husband and a wife. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Likewise, if a candidate experimented with drugs or got a DUI when he was in college, so what? We all do stupid things we wish we hadn't in college. As long as the candidate is not currently addicted to drugs or alcohol, it shouldn't matter. What should matter to voters is who the candidate is NOW, not what he did 20 years ago.
With Cain's exit, we now are left with a field of professional politicians and Washington insiders. That's a shame. Cain was far from perfect. But he was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political scene. He had vast potential. Unfortunately, our current political system chewed him up and spit him out. That's going to continue to happen, so long as a bloodthirsty, tabloid-crazed public continues to lust after every scrap of information -- relevant or not -- about our politicians. Unless we learn to rein in that instinct and establish some realistic boundaries about what we have a right to know, pretty soon, new candidates will simply decide not to run. And who can blame them? We'll be left with the same flawed candidates and the same stale ideas. We'll be left to hold our nose, pull the lever and cast a vote, not for the best candidate, but for the "lesser of two evils." And our entire country will suffer as a result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)