It's hard to believe, but in a little less than two months, we'll know the answer to the question of who will be president for the next four years. Will it be "golden boy" Mitt Romney, whose life has been a chain of largely uninterrupted successes? Or will Barack Obama, who shocked the world in 2008 by completing his meteoric rise from state senator from Illinois to the White House, be able to hold on to his job?
Looking at this objectively, I'd say we have a fairly even race between two appealing, well-financed candidates. So who wins in November? That's the question I'm going to attempt to answer. Let's get started with the challenger.
Mitt Romney: Romney would appear to have it all. He has the pedigree. His father, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s, as well as a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He's been a successful businessman, with a current personal worth of almost $200 million. He helped turn around the ailing Salt Lake Winter Olympics in the 1990s (though some say the games weren't in as much trouble as he claimed.) And he managed the near impossible feat of being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. From that position, he showed an ability to govern from the political middle. He even managed to pass health care reform similar to "Obamacare," which he now says he wants to repeal. In fact, the only glitches on his otherwise sterling resume are a failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy and a failed presidential bid four years ago.
This year was ripe for a Romney run. In the early going, he stood out, head and shoulders above a field of glaringly weak candidates composed of no-names (Herman Cain, John Huntsman) and has-beens (Newt Gingrich). In the Republican debates earlier this year, Romney appeared the most presidential and the most prepared. He even managed to cast himself as the most moderate of the candidates.
So could he beat Obama? Most definitely. Romney's biggest strengths are his business acumen, his ability to raise funds (he has often ranked among the leaders in fund-raising in other races) and his ability to appear moderate. In fact, he has shown he has the ability to govern as a moderate when called upon (or when he's forced to -- see Massachusetts). That ability to govern from the middle may represent the biggest threat to Obama, since it will certainly appeal to undecided and "swing" voters.
But as much as Romney brings to this race, his weaknesses are just as glaring. Chief among these is his tendency to change his mind on positions important to the GOP. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until 2005, when he had a change of heart and became pro-life. While governor of Massachusetts, he declared that he was against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. In fact, he even ordered the county clerks of his state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, he has cast himself as being against both gay marriage and civil unions. While I understand that people sometimes have changes of heart (it happens to us all), these "flip-flops" on important positions strike me as disingenuous at best, blatantly opportunistic at worst. Whether he intended it or not, Romney has made it appear as if he has no core convictions of his own, that he simply adopts the position that is most popular at the moment, and that will help him get ahead. That's slimy. And it makes it hard for voters to know what Romney will do if elected.
Romney's other glaring weakness is his pick for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As I've noted before, Ryan is an extremist of the worst kind. He has shown that he doesn't like women, having voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, declaring that he is against all abortions, even those that result from rape or incest, and wanting to deny over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. His forte is supposedly the budget, but his proposals would damage both Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's nomination will likely appeal to the most hardcore, radical parts of the Republican Party, but it will do nothing to burnish Romney's reputation as a moderate who can govern from the middle. When it comes to making that case, Ryan is a definite liability.
Barack Obama: Obama's biggest strength is, ironically, also his biggest weakness. Obama is the incumbent, and historically, incumbents are extremely difficult to beat. Being the incumbent means that Obama has a built-in bully pulpit to get his message out to voters that Romney doesn't have. When Obama speaks, everyone stops and listens. But that is also his biggest weakness, since Obama now has a record he has to defend to voters.
In grading Obama's first term, I think he deserves credit on two fronts. First, Obama has largely lived up to the promises he made to voters four years ago. Obama promised to put an end to the unpopular Iraq war, and he has done so. Although we still have troops in Afghanistan, we now have a timetable in place for bringing them home.
Obama promised to put an end to the misguided "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, and he did so.
Obama promised to pass health care reform, and he did so, even though "Obamacare," as it is derisively called by Republicans, has now become a rallying point for the GOP in this election.
Obama deserves credit for thinking outside the box. Whether you agree with his health care plan or not, and it is by no means perfect, it is at least something markedly different from the status quo, which has been proven not to work. And if the Republicans don't like it, where's their plan? It's not enough to just criticize Obama's plan to fix health care. If the GOP succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, then what's their plan? To go back to the status quo? That's hardly progress, and it would be unacceptable.
Obama's weakness, of course, is the economy. While the stock market has recovered nicely in the past four years (remember it was down below 10,000 when he took office), and while certain key indicators have bounced back, the truth is, unemployment has remained largely unchanged. There are still millions of people out of work, or who have just given up on even trying to gain employment. Voters tend to "vote their wallets," so if job growth remains stagnant, Obama could be in serious trouble. If, however, voters perceive that, though the economy isn't full recovered, it is headed in the right direction, they might be willing to give Obama four more years to see what happens.
So to the big question: Who wins in November? For myself, I hope Obama gets another term. Sure, he hasn't done everything he promised. In some ways, he's been a disappointment to those of us who bought into "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we Can!" But I don't think he's done enough wrong to justify a change, even though he hasn't accomplished everything yet.
Who do I think will actually win? At this point, I would give the slightest edge to Romney. I think people are angry. They're tired of government spending and deficits and debts. And they're worried about employment and the continuing lack of jobs. I think Romney will take advantage of that, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when "it's the economy, stupid" became his rally cry.
If Romney manages to unseat Obama, he will face a stiff challenge that will require every bit of his business acumen and diplomacy. He has shown he has the ability to govern from the middle when he needs to. The question is, will he? Or will he kowtow to the most extreme elements of his party? I remain hopeful, but only time will tell.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Ryan pick could sink Romney's campaign
On Aug. 11, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his pick for vice presidential running mate. While some have hailed the pick as "excellent," including the predictably conservative Wall Street Journal, the truth is, Ryan's positions make him wholly unsuitable for the job. In fact, I predict what seemed a safe pick at the time may ultimately sink Romney in the general election.
Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.
Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
What has happened to freedom of religion?
Several news stories in the past few weeks have led me to wonder if we still cherish the idea of freedom of religion in this country. Do we still believe that every person, no matter where they come from, has a right to practice their religion as they see fit, as a matter of conscience (or to not practice religion at all)? Or have we bought into the false idea that America was founded as a "Christian nation," where only Christians are allowed to practice openly and freely?
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Court's ruling on Obamacare a surprise
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama a major victory when it, in effect, validated the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
In summary, the Court ruled by a narrow 5-4 margin that the centerpiece of the law, the "individual mandate" requiring every American to have health insurance by 2014, was constitutional as a tax, though it was not allowed under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The ruling has the effect of allowing the government to continue with the implementation of the law.
As expected, reaction to the court's ruling was decidedly mixed. Democrats hailed the ruling as a victory for every American without health care. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have made it a rallying point, and will try to use it to oust Obama in November.
I must admit that I don't have all the facts about Obama's health care bill. Like most Americans, I have heard only snippets of what the legislation actually does. What I have heard, I like, specifically prohibiting insurance companies from denying consumers because of pre-existing conditions and allowing parents to keep their children on their policies longer. I like the fact that Obama had the courage to touch the proverbial "third rail" of health care. Whether you agree with his solution or not, at least he had the courage to think outside the box and try something different. The one thing I think we all can agree on is that the system, as it currently exists, isn't working.
In light of the Court's ruling and the reaction to it, I believe the time is right to ask the question: What is the ultimate solution to our nation's health care woes?
At one time, I thought universal (government-run) health care was the answer. I'm no longer so certain of that, but I do believe government DOES have a role to play. I'd like to see government set price caps on what it costs to go to the doctor. As it now stands, only those with a certain income, or those with damn good insurance, can afford to see their family physician regularly for so-called "preventive care." The end result, as we've seen, is people clogging emergency rooms so they can be seen for simple sinus infections. Or people who have become seriously ill because they have waited so long to seek help because they couldn't afford a doctor's visit. That's criminal.
I'd also like to see government set some price caps on the cost of prescription drugs. Right now, it can cost hundreds of dollars a month for people to get needed medications for conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or even birth control. While it might be argued that some are paying the price for years of bad life choices, it's also true that many of these conditions are genetic. And does it really matter why someone needs the medicine? Every American has a right to a decent quality of life. They shouldn't be denied that because the cost of their medication is out of their reach.
Perhaps what I'd like to see most of all is the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. It would read: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to each senator and representative in Congress." Then, use that new amendment to strip them of their "golden parachute" lifetime health care that is so much better than what is available to the average citizen. Use it to strip them of their lifetime pensions that are equal to their full salary when they left office.
That's part of the problem on health care, and many other issues. Our elected representatives are so far removed from the realities faced by average Americans, they have no hope of understanding the problems created by the laws they've passed. Right now, they have no real incentive to pass meaningful health care reform. And why should they? They, and their families are provided for until they die.
Now, imagine what would happen if they were forced to find health insurance on their own while still in office, without the "golden parachute," and without the promise of a cushy lifetime pension. I bet they would begin to see the problem pretty quickly. And I bet they would work hard to find a real, workable solution.
I believe access to affordable health care is a constitutional right (We are guaranteed the rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness). And while it's true that the Affordable Health Care Act has some major problems, I believe it is a small step in the right direction. I can only hope that our lawmakers won't rest on their laurels or worse, restore the status quo. Obama has opened the door to a national dialogue on health care. It's a conversation that's long overdue.
In summary, the Court ruled by a narrow 5-4 margin that the centerpiece of the law, the "individual mandate" requiring every American to have health insurance by 2014, was constitutional as a tax, though it was not allowed under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The ruling has the effect of allowing the government to continue with the implementation of the law.
As expected, reaction to the court's ruling was decidedly mixed. Democrats hailed the ruling as a victory for every American without health care. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have made it a rallying point, and will try to use it to oust Obama in November.
I must admit that I don't have all the facts about Obama's health care bill. Like most Americans, I have heard only snippets of what the legislation actually does. What I have heard, I like, specifically prohibiting insurance companies from denying consumers because of pre-existing conditions and allowing parents to keep their children on their policies longer. I like the fact that Obama had the courage to touch the proverbial "third rail" of health care. Whether you agree with his solution or not, at least he had the courage to think outside the box and try something different. The one thing I think we all can agree on is that the system, as it currently exists, isn't working.
In light of the Court's ruling and the reaction to it, I believe the time is right to ask the question: What is the ultimate solution to our nation's health care woes?
At one time, I thought universal (government-run) health care was the answer. I'm no longer so certain of that, but I do believe government DOES have a role to play. I'd like to see government set price caps on what it costs to go to the doctor. As it now stands, only those with a certain income, or those with damn good insurance, can afford to see their family physician regularly for so-called "preventive care." The end result, as we've seen, is people clogging emergency rooms so they can be seen for simple sinus infections. Or people who have become seriously ill because they have waited so long to seek help because they couldn't afford a doctor's visit. That's criminal.
I'd also like to see government set some price caps on the cost of prescription drugs. Right now, it can cost hundreds of dollars a month for people to get needed medications for conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or even birth control. While it might be argued that some are paying the price for years of bad life choices, it's also true that many of these conditions are genetic. And does it really matter why someone needs the medicine? Every American has a right to a decent quality of life. They shouldn't be denied that because the cost of their medication is out of their reach.
Perhaps what I'd like to see most of all is the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. It would read: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to each senator and representative in Congress." Then, use that new amendment to strip them of their "golden parachute" lifetime health care that is so much better than what is available to the average citizen. Use it to strip them of their lifetime pensions that are equal to their full salary when they left office.
That's part of the problem on health care, and many other issues. Our elected representatives are so far removed from the realities faced by average Americans, they have no hope of understanding the problems created by the laws they've passed. Right now, they have no real incentive to pass meaningful health care reform. And why should they? They, and their families are provided for until they die.
Now, imagine what would happen if they were forced to find health insurance on their own while still in office, without the "golden parachute," and without the promise of a cushy lifetime pension. I bet they would begin to see the problem pretty quickly. And I bet they would work hard to find a real, workable solution.
I believe access to affordable health care is a constitutional right (We are guaranteed the rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness). And while it's true that the Affordable Health Care Act has some major problems, I believe it is a small step in the right direction. I can only hope that our lawmakers won't rest on their laurels or worse, restore the status quo. Obama has opened the door to a national dialogue on health care. It's a conversation that's long overdue.
A nation of bullies
A couple of weeks ago, I saw something on YouTube that truly disturbed me. The video, titled "Making the bus monitor cry," showed a group of seventh-graders in Rochester, N.Y., verbally attacking the 68-year-old bus monitor on the last day of school. What I saw went well beyond simple harassment or bullying. This group of kids called her fat. They called her poor, suggesting that she got her purse out of a Dumpster. They poked and prodded her. One bully even suggested that her children should kill themselves because she was so disgusting. This to a woman who had already lost one child to suicide. The whole thing made me angry. It made me sick.
In response to the attack, a couple of the bullies have since written letters of apology. One parent apologized in person for his child's awful behavior. And thousands of Americans have donated money to help the bus monitor retire, or take a dream vacation. At last count, more than $650,000 had been raised. While these are nice gestures, I believe the incident raises some serious questions about what kind of nation we are becoming. Are we becoming a nation of bullies?
I admit it. I was bullied as a kid. Being a kid with a disability (I have cerebral palsy), and being someone who always cared more about academics than partying or going out, I suppose it was inevitable. It was hard to endure the insults and the teasing. It was difficult to ignore the taunts and the attempts to lure me into fights. I felt powerless to stop it, and many afternoons I went home crying. But you know what? As bad as it was, I NEVER had someone threaten to stab me. I NEVER had anyone suggest that my parents should kill themselves because I was so disgusting. What happened to that bus monitor was borderline criminal. It went well beyond what can reasonably considered normal, even for immature seventh-graders.
So what should we do about it? What should we do to make sure this never happens again? What should we do to ensure we aren't raising a generation of sociopaths?
The first thing I would do is teach this, and future, generations that every action has a consequence. In this case, I would make each of the bullies face the consequences of his actions head-on. It's nice that a couple of the kids wrote letters of apology. It's nice that one parent saw fit to apologize for his child's behavior. But it's not enough. Letters and third-party apologies allow the bullies to remain detached from the consequences of their actions. So have each child meet with the bus monitor alone. Have him apologize to her personally and offer an explanation for his behavior. Have him listen to his victim explain the impact his taunts had on her. And if she asks for any kind of restitution, make him give it, no questions asked.
The second thing I would do is limit children's exposure to TV, movies,video games and the Internet. There have been studies for years that have shown consistently that exposing children to too much violence too early desensitizes them to that violence and makes them less compassionate. This incident would seem to bear that out. I'm not saying that children should be banned from these things altogether. But parents, at the very least, should pay close attention to the ratings on the TV shows and movies they allow their children to see and on the video games they buy for them. They should install Net Nanny software on every computer in the house and check browsing histories often. In short, parents need to be parents. Set limits on what is acceptable in your house, then stick to it.
As for what the school system should do, I believe the bullies should be suspended for a lengthy sentence at the beginning of the next school year, perhaps even expelled. School systems across the nation should have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to bullying, and these boys need to be made an example of.
The sad truth is, it's probably too late for these boys to learn the compassion and the respect for others they so clearly lack. Those are lessons that should have been taught at their parents' knee from the time they could talk. The good news is, it's not too late to return to teaching those values. This video clearly shows what happens when we abandon them. The question is, are we smart enough to learn that lesson?
In response to the attack, a couple of the bullies have since written letters of apology. One parent apologized in person for his child's awful behavior. And thousands of Americans have donated money to help the bus monitor retire, or take a dream vacation. At last count, more than $650,000 had been raised. While these are nice gestures, I believe the incident raises some serious questions about what kind of nation we are becoming. Are we becoming a nation of bullies?
I admit it. I was bullied as a kid. Being a kid with a disability (I have cerebral palsy), and being someone who always cared more about academics than partying or going out, I suppose it was inevitable. It was hard to endure the insults and the teasing. It was difficult to ignore the taunts and the attempts to lure me into fights. I felt powerless to stop it, and many afternoons I went home crying. But you know what? As bad as it was, I NEVER had someone threaten to stab me. I NEVER had anyone suggest that my parents should kill themselves because I was so disgusting. What happened to that bus monitor was borderline criminal. It went well beyond what can reasonably considered normal, even for immature seventh-graders.
So what should we do about it? What should we do to make sure this never happens again? What should we do to ensure we aren't raising a generation of sociopaths?
The first thing I would do is teach this, and future, generations that every action has a consequence. In this case, I would make each of the bullies face the consequences of his actions head-on. It's nice that a couple of the kids wrote letters of apology. It's nice that one parent saw fit to apologize for his child's behavior. But it's not enough. Letters and third-party apologies allow the bullies to remain detached from the consequences of their actions. So have each child meet with the bus monitor alone. Have him apologize to her personally and offer an explanation for his behavior. Have him listen to his victim explain the impact his taunts had on her. And if she asks for any kind of restitution, make him give it, no questions asked.
The second thing I would do is limit children's exposure to TV, movies,video games and the Internet. There have been studies for years that have shown consistently that exposing children to too much violence too early desensitizes them to that violence and makes them less compassionate. This incident would seem to bear that out. I'm not saying that children should be banned from these things altogether. But parents, at the very least, should pay close attention to the ratings on the TV shows and movies they allow their children to see and on the video games they buy for them. They should install Net Nanny software on every computer in the house and check browsing histories often. In short, parents need to be parents. Set limits on what is acceptable in your house, then stick to it.
As for what the school system should do, I believe the bullies should be suspended for a lengthy sentence at the beginning of the next school year, perhaps even expelled. School systems across the nation should have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to bullying, and these boys need to be made an example of.
The sad truth is, it's probably too late for these boys to learn the compassion and the respect for others they so clearly lack. Those are lessons that should have been taught at their parents' knee from the time they could talk. The good news is, it's not too late to return to teaching those values. This video clearly shows what happens when we abandon them. The question is, are we smart enough to learn that lesson?
Friday, June 22, 2012
New La. law raises ethical question
For once, my old home state of Louisiana is about to be on the cutting edge of an issue. Who knew?
In July, a new law will take effect that will require all registered sex offenders in the state to indicate their status on Facebook and other forms of social media. While this might sound draconian and unfair to civil libertarians, I believe the state is doing exactly the right thing to protect its children.
This isn't an easy question to answer, whether sex offenders should be required to identify themselves on social media. A very strong argument could be made that the law is unconstitutional because it amounts to double jeopardy. Under this argument, once a sex offender pays his debt to society, he should be free to carry on with his life, not be continually penalized because of one past mistake. Under most circumstances, I would find myself firmly in this camp. I do believe criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, and I believe once most criminals are out of prison, they are entitled to a second chance to become a productive member of society. Not this time.
The problem with sex offenders is that they don't get better. Sex crimes -- rape and pedophilia -- aren't like other crimes. They aren't motivated by financial gain. They aren't crimes of passion. Sex crimes are cold and calculating. They are motivated by one thing -- power. Pedophiles especially are mentally ill. Simply locking them away isn't enough. Without the proper intervention and intensive therapy, they are almost guaranteed to re-offend upon their release. Numerous studies have proven it.
Requiring registered sex offenders to reveal themselves on social media might sound like unfair double jeopardy. It might seem like we're preventing the offender from being able to move forward with his life. But the fact is, lots of kids use Facebook every day (despite a prohibition against minors having accounts). Today's busy parents don't always have time to closely monitor their kids' online activity. So anything the state can do to make that important job easier is welcome.
In July, a new law will take effect that will require all registered sex offenders in the state to indicate their status on Facebook and other forms of social media. While this might sound draconian and unfair to civil libertarians, I believe the state is doing exactly the right thing to protect its children.
This isn't an easy question to answer, whether sex offenders should be required to identify themselves on social media. A very strong argument could be made that the law is unconstitutional because it amounts to double jeopardy. Under this argument, once a sex offender pays his debt to society, he should be free to carry on with his life, not be continually penalized because of one past mistake. Under most circumstances, I would find myself firmly in this camp. I do believe criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, and I believe once most criminals are out of prison, they are entitled to a second chance to become a productive member of society. Not this time.
The problem with sex offenders is that they don't get better. Sex crimes -- rape and pedophilia -- aren't like other crimes. They aren't motivated by financial gain. They aren't crimes of passion. Sex crimes are cold and calculating. They are motivated by one thing -- power. Pedophiles especially are mentally ill. Simply locking them away isn't enough. Without the proper intervention and intensive therapy, they are almost guaranteed to re-offend upon their release. Numerous studies have proven it.
Requiring registered sex offenders to reveal themselves on social media might sound like unfair double jeopardy. It might seem like we're preventing the offender from being able to move forward with his life. But the fact is, lots of kids use Facebook every day (despite a prohibition against minors having accounts). Today's busy parents don't always have time to closely monitor their kids' online activity. So anything the state can do to make that important job easier is welcome.
Friday, June 15, 2012
And now, for something completely different
This is usually a strictly political blog, about strictly political issues. Every once in awhile, though, I like to address topics that stray from that strict template, things that make me stop and think. This is one of those times. This morning, I was on my friend Jason Tippitt's blog, "State of Formation," which addresses contemporary religious issues from a humanist perspective. On it, he asked the question, "If I could give my 12-year-old self advice based on what I've learned about life so far, what would I tell him?" That's an intriguing question, and one I thought I might attempt to answer. So what advice would I give my 12-year-old self if I had the chance?
1. Life ISN'T fair: This is probably the single hardest lesson each of us has to learn for ourselves. I remember my father telling me as a child that if I worked hard and made good decisions, good things would come to me. He was right, to a point. Good things come to those who work hard and do the right things. But it's also true that bad things happen to good people, sometimes for no apparent reason. Our parents die unexpectedly. We're laid off from our job after years of loyal service with the same company. Our spouses and friends hurt us. Sometimes marriages end, despite our best efforts. Is any of this fair? No. But these things are part of life. The sooner we accept this basic truth, the sooner we can begin the healing process and move forward.
When bad things happen, it's very easy to succumb to the temptation to curl up and pull the proverbial covers over our head. But the truth is, it's how we respond to life's road blocks that determines what kind of person we really are. Quitting never accomplishes anything. It doesn't solve the problem, and it only hurts us in the end. Life can be painful, but if we take it one minute, one second, at a time and stay focused on moving forward, we are almost guaranteed to find something better on the other side of the problem.
2. When it comes to choosing a career, follow your dreams and do something that makes you happy: Your average working career is about 30 years, and it's getting longer every day. That's a long time to be doing something you hate. Never allow anyone to talk you out of your dream. When I graduated from high school, I wanted to major in music, with a concentration in vocal performance. Unfortunately, my father didn't like that choice, and he told me that he wouldn't pay for me to get my degree if I pursued that major. Lacking any other means for paying for college myself, I reluctantly chose something else. I love journalism, but I've always wondered what might have happened if I had pursued my first dream.
When it comes to choosing a career, remember that money and position aren't everything. They're not even the most important thing. I've known too many people who have advanced in their careers to the point that they're not even doing the things they love most anymore, those things that made them want that career in the first place. Stick with doing those things you love, and you'll always find happiness.
3. Choose your friends carefully: What is a friend? A friend is someone who loves you and accepts you for who YOU are, not who they wish you were. A friend is someone you can share with. Someone you can laugh with. Someone you can cry with. A friend is someone who is there for you, in good times and bad. A friend is someone who will tell you what you NEED to hear, not just what you WANT to hear. A friend always has your best interest at heart.
A friend will never try to change who you are to suit their own needs. A friend will never pressure you to do something dangerous, or something you know to be wrong. If you're friends with someone who does either of these things, guess what? They're not your friend.
4. Don't be afraid to open yourself up to love: Love is truly a double-edged sword. As wonderful as it feels to be in love for the first time, it also can be devastating if the relationship doesn't work out. That kind of pain is just part of life. Don't give up on love after your first failure. As much as it hurts initially, it will get better if you just keep focused on the future. Remember that God never intended for us to be alone. He created someone for everyone, and you can find that person, if only you're patient. When you find that love, don't be afraid to love with your whole heart and soul. It's a huge risk making yourself vulnerable to someone like that. But the rewards are totally worth it.
5. Don't judge someone based on their appearance. Judge them based on their actions: In other words, don't pass judgment on someone until you "walk a mile in their shoes," as the old saying goes. Keep an open mind and get to know someone before passing judgment. You'll often find friends in the most unlikely of places, and you might learn some things, to boot. Bottom line here is, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." If you keep this as your guiding principle, you can't go wrong.
1. Life ISN'T fair: This is probably the single hardest lesson each of us has to learn for ourselves. I remember my father telling me as a child that if I worked hard and made good decisions, good things would come to me. He was right, to a point. Good things come to those who work hard and do the right things. But it's also true that bad things happen to good people, sometimes for no apparent reason. Our parents die unexpectedly. We're laid off from our job after years of loyal service with the same company. Our spouses and friends hurt us. Sometimes marriages end, despite our best efforts. Is any of this fair? No. But these things are part of life. The sooner we accept this basic truth, the sooner we can begin the healing process and move forward.
When bad things happen, it's very easy to succumb to the temptation to curl up and pull the proverbial covers over our head. But the truth is, it's how we respond to life's road blocks that determines what kind of person we really are. Quitting never accomplishes anything. It doesn't solve the problem, and it only hurts us in the end. Life can be painful, but if we take it one minute, one second, at a time and stay focused on moving forward, we are almost guaranteed to find something better on the other side of the problem.
2. When it comes to choosing a career, follow your dreams and do something that makes you happy: Your average working career is about 30 years, and it's getting longer every day. That's a long time to be doing something you hate. Never allow anyone to talk you out of your dream. When I graduated from high school, I wanted to major in music, with a concentration in vocal performance. Unfortunately, my father didn't like that choice, and he told me that he wouldn't pay for me to get my degree if I pursued that major. Lacking any other means for paying for college myself, I reluctantly chose something else. I love journalism, but I've always wondered what might have happened if I had pursued my first dream.
When it comes to choosing a career, remember that money and position aren't everything. They're not even the most important thing. I've known too many people who have advanced in their careers to the point that they're not even doing the things they love most anymore, those things that made them want that career in the first place. Stick with doing those things you love, and you'll always find happiness.
3. Choose your friends carefully: What is a friend? A friend is someone who loves you and accepts you for who YOU are, not who they wish you were. A friend is someone you can share with. Someone you can laugh with. Someone you can cry with. A friend is someone who is there for you, in good times and bad. A friend is someone who will tell you what you NEED to hear, not just what you WANT to hear. A friend always has your best interest at heart.
A friend will never try to change who you are to suit their own needs. A friend will never pressure you to do something dangerous, or something you know to be wrong. If you're friends with someone who does either of these things, guess what? They're not your friend.
4. Don't be afraid to open yourself up to love: Love is truly a double-edged sword. As wonderful as it feels to be in love for the first time, it also can be devastating if the relationship doesn't work out. That kind of pain is just part of life. Don't give up on love after your first failure. As much as it hurts initially, it will get better if you just keep focused on the future. Remember that God never intended for us to be alone. He created someone for everyone, and you can find that person, if only you're patient. When you find that love, don't be afraid to love with your whole heart and soul. It's a huge risk making yourself vulnerable to someone like that. But the rewards are totally worth it.
5. Don't judge someone based on their appearance. Judge them based on their actions: In other words, don't pass judgment on someone until you "walk a mile in their shoes," as the old saying goes. Keep an open mind and get to know someone before passing judgment. You'll often find friends in the most unlikely of places, and you might learn some things, to boot. Bottom line here is, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." If you keep this as your guiding principle, you can't go wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)