Every so often, I like to do a Google check on myself to see what I can find. As a former journalist, it's always interesting to see where my old columns have ended up. Earlier this week, I did such a check, and discovered, much to my amusement and disgust, that at least one column, written in 2008, was picked up by a white-supremacist Web site.
The column in question was in response to an attempted assassination plot against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama by two Neo-Nazi skinheads. One skinhead was from Bells, Tenn., just one county over from my former hometown of Jackson. The other, from West Helena, Ark. At the time, I was attempting to discern what could cause two otherwise quiet, respectful youths (by all accounts from their friends and family) to develop such hate for other races. Like any good journalist, I was attempting to mine what lessons I could from the failed plot.
It's been almost four years since that column first appeared in The Jackson Sun. And after re-reading it (along with the hilarious editorial comments added by the forum poster), I decided to revisit the issue of what exactly goes into creating a racist.
I have always believed that humans are innately good. They aren't born evil. Evil and hatred are learned behaviors. So evil and hatred are taught at a parent's knee from a very early age. What a parent believes, a child is likely to reflect, to adopt as his or her own belief.
Another reason people adopt racist philosophies is because of the very human need to belong. Many racists (but not all) come from broken homes. They're angry. They believe the world has turned its back on them and that they're being unfairly kept from succeeding. So, instead of picking themselves up and working hard to change their situation, they gravitate to other angry people who share their beliefs. They are seduced by people, and groups, that offer easy answers. "It's not your fault your life hasn't worked out the way your want it," they are told. "Blame the (insert racial or ethnic group here.) It's all THEIR fault." By joining with these people and groups, the nascent racist is able to relieve him or herself of any personal responsibility for the state of their life. They are able to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of family, they might otherwise be missing.
Here's the thing, though. That sense of family and belonging is based on a lie. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood and the Supreme White Alliance (the group our two skinheads belonged to) aren't based on love and acceptance (the two things our nascent racist is seeking). They are founded on the principles of hatred and exclusivity.
These groups aren't Christian, no matter how they like to present themselves. Here's a dose of reality. Jesus was NOT white, blond-haired and blue-eyed. He was Middle-Eastern, meaning he was olive-skinned. In reality, he was closer to black than white.
Jesus never preached hatred toward our fellow man. Read the Gospels, and you'll find that he often associated with, even ate with, sinners and social outcasts. He healed lepers. When he left the disciples to return to heaven, he told his followers to "Go ye therefore and make disciples of ALL men" (Matthew 28). How does any of that fit into the racist's view of a "white, Christian America?" It doesn't.
The bottom line is, racists are created, not born. It's up to this generation to teach the next not to hate. Parents, teach your children to look at others with colorblind eyes. Teach them to judge others based not on their skin color or ethnicity, but on the "content of their character," to quote Dr. King. Teach your children to take responsibility for their own lives and their own successes or failures. Racism is the easy way out, the coward's way out. Life isn't easy or fair. The sooner we teach our children that simple fact and give them the tools to succeed, the sooner America can live up to its full potential and become what it was always meant to be: a land of opportunity for everyone who cares to dream and to work hard to achieve it.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
A day we can't afford to forget
Today marks the 68th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. Commonly remembered as "D-Day," the Allied victory here spelled the beginning of the end for the Nazis. Less than a year later, on May 8, 1945, Germany surrendered, putting an end to the European portion of the war. Japan surrendered just three months later, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In the decades following the end of World War II, certain dates have become famous. Each year, veterans from that war stop to remember Dec. 7, 1941, which marks the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the singular event that finally brought America into the war. They also pause to remember today with great pomp and ceremony, and they call on this, and future, generations never to forget the importance of these increasingly distant anniversaries.
The pleas to remember these days are much more than the simple reminisces of aging veterans from America's "Greatest Generation." These aging warriors are right that we shouldn't forget about these important days in our nation's history. We can't afford to.
To forget about D-Day, to relegate it to just another footnote in our history, would be the ultimate slap in the face to those veterans who died in the invasion. And it would be a slap in the face to those who survived.
D-Day was, and remains, the single largest amphibious invasion the world has ever seen. More than 160,000 Allied troops participated, and more than 10,000 died in the effort. What they accomplished with Operation Overlord changed the course of the war by breaking the back of the Nazi regime. Ultimately, what they accomplished changed the course of world history. That sacrifice, and that accomplishment, deserves to be remembered.
Forgetting D-Day means forgetting those hard-fought lessons taught by the war. World War II let us see, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the face of pure evil in Adolph Hitler. It taught us that we cannot afford to simply turn away from that evil. No matter how heinous, it must be confronted and ultimately dealt with. And it illustrated, in horrific terms through Hitler's concentration camps, the ultimate result of bigotry and hatred when left unchecked.
Thousands of Americans fought and died so that we might learn those harsh realities, and we shouldn't let that sacrifice be in vain. Today, we should stop and reflect on those lessons learned more than a half century ago. We should find a veteran (of any war) and say "thank you" for their willingness to sacrifice to keep our nation free. And we should take the time to begin teaching the next generation those important lessons that the "Greatest Generation" has taught us.
In the decades following the end of World War II, certain dates have become famous. Each year, veterans from that war stop to remember Dec. 7, 1941, which marks the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the singular event that finally brought America into the war. They also pause to remember today with great pomp and ceremony, and they call on this, and future, generations never to forget the importance of these increasingly distant anniversaries.
The pleas to remember these days are much more than the simple reminisces of aging veterans from America's "Greatest Generation." These aging warriors are right that we shouldn't forget about these important days in our nation's history. We can't afford to.
To forget about D-Day, to relegate it to just another footnote in our history, would be the ultimate slap in the face to those veterans who died in the invasion. And it would be a slap in the face to those who survived.
D-Day was, and remains, the single largest amphibious invasion the world has ever seen. More than 160,000 Allied troops participated, and more than 10,000 died in the effort. What they accomplished with Operation Overlord changed the course of the war by breaking the back of the Nazi regime. Ultimately, what they accomplished changed the course of world history. That sacrifice, and that accomplishment, deserves to be remembered.
Forgetting D-Day means forgetting those hard-fought lessons taught by the war. World War II let us see, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the face of pure evil in Adolph Hitler. It taught us that we cannot afford to simply turn away from that evil. No matter how heinous, it must be confronted and ultimately dealt with. And it illustrated, in horrific terms through Hitler's concentration camps, the ultimate result of bigotry and hatred when left unchecked.
Thousands of Americans fought and died so that we might learn those harsh realities, and we shouldn't let that sacrifice be in vain. Today, we should stop and reflect on those lessons learned more than a half century ago. We should find a veteran (of any war) and say "thank you" for their willingness to sacrifice to keep our nation free. And we should take the time to begin teaching the next generation those important lessons that the "Greatest Generation" has taught us.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tennessee gets it wrong...Again
A few weeks ago, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam showed that despite a good education, unquestioned intelligence and coming from a wealthy family (his family founded the Pilot truck stop chain), he's as misguided as the rest of his party when it comes giving Tennessee's students a realistic view of sex education.
Haslam signed into law perhaps the most benighted piece of legislation in Tennessee's history. The law is so vaguely worded that such innocent teenage behaviors as holding hands and kissing could be defined as "gateway sexual behavior." Teachers who discuss such deviant behavior -- or even guest speakers from organizations such as Planned Parenthood who dare mention the IDEA of birth control -- could be arrested and fined as much as $500. The end result of this awful piece of legislation is that the only idea that can now legally be discussed in the state's sex education classes is "abstinence only," the one approach to sex ed that has been proven NOT to work.
Tennessee lawmakers -- and parents -- are fooling themselves if they think that simply telling students not to have sex is going to have any discernible impact on the state's teen pregnancy rate. Think about it. What's the first thing any child asks when told NOT to do something? Right. "Don't do what?" Followed quickly by "Where is it?" Every parent knows that to be true. It's been proven by years of studies, which have conclusively proven that the highest teen pregnancy rates are in states that emphasize "abstinence-only" sex education over a more realistic, common-sense approach.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Teenagers are curious about sex. That curiosity is a normal part of growing up. And simply telling them not to have sex isn't going to stop them from experimenting. If anything, it will encourage them to experiment more. Without the proper education, they are less likely to use protection, and more likely to create an accidental pregnancy. That's a fact.
Giving students information about birth control -- including how to use each method properly and their rates of effectiveness -- doesn't mean they will run out immediately and have sex. If anything,giving students the right information about things like birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and the psychological impact of sex -- that it irrevocably bonds you to your partner, whether or not a pregnancy or disease results -- will cause them to think twice before taking that step with someone.
No approach to sex education is perfect. Some teens will continue to have sex, no matter what we tell them. It's a dangerous world out there, far different than the one faced by our parents and grandparents. Continuing to bury our heads in the sand by pretending that "abstinence only" works; continuing to deny our kids valuable, life-saving information in the face of very real danger; is dangerous. It's irresponsible. Our kids deserve better.
Haslam signed into law perhaps the most benighted piece of legislation in Tennessee's history. The law is so vaguely worded that such innocent teenage behaviors as holding hands and kissing could be defined as "gateway sexual behavior." Teachers who discuss such deviant behavior -- or even guest speakers from organizations such as Planned Parenthood who dare mention the IDEA of birth control -- could be arrested and fined as much as $500. The end result of this awful piece of legislation is that the only idea that can now legally be discussed in the state's sex education classes is "abstinence only," the one approach to sex ed that has been proven NOT to work.
Tennessee lawmakers -- and parents -- are fooling themselves if they think that simply telling students not to have sex is going to have any discernible impact on the state's teen pregnancy rate. Think about it. What's the first thing any child asks when told NOT to do something? Right. "Don't do what?" Followed quickly by "Where is it?" Every parent knows that to be true. It's been proven by years of studies, which have conclusively proven that the highest teen pregnancy rates are in states that emphasize "abstinence-only" sex education over a more realistic, common-sense approach.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Teenagers are curious about sex. That curiosity is a normal part of growing up. And simply telling them not to have sex isn't going to stop them from experimenting. If anything, it will encourage them to experiment more. Without the proper education, they are less likely to use protection, and more likely to create an accidental pregnancy. That's a fact.
Giving students information about birth control -- including how to use each method properly and their rates of effectiveness -- doesn't mean they will run out immediately and have sex. If anything,giving students the right information about things like birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and the psychological impact of sex -- that it irrevocably bonds you to your partner, whether or not a pregnancy or disease results -- will cause them to think twice before taking that step with someone.
No approach to sex education is perfect. Some teens will continue to have sex, no matter what we tell them. It's a dangerous world out there, far different than the one faced by our parents and grandparents. Continuing to bury our heads in the sand by pretending that "abstinence only" works; continuing to deny our kids valuable, life-saving information in the face of very real danger; is dangerous. It's irresponsible. Our kids deserve better.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
California death penalty ban long overdue
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.
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, 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)