God help me, I've discovered poetry. I really like this one, especially as I work in a library and see people like this almost daily.
The Criticby C. K. Williams, from Flesh and Blood (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux)
In the Boston Public Library on Boylston Street, where all the
bums come in stinking from the cold,
there was one who had a battered loose-leaf book he used to
scribble in for hours on end.
He wrote with no apparent hesitation, quickly, and with
concentration; his inspiration was inspiring;
you had to look again to realize that he was writing over
words that were already there——
blocks of cursive etched into the softened paper, interspersed with
poems in print he'd pasted in.
I hated to think of the volumes he'd violated to construct his opus,
but I liked him anyway,
especially the way he'd often reach the end, close his work with
weary satisfaction, then open again
and start again: page one, chapter one, his blood-rimmed eyes as
rapt as David's doing psalms.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Nativity
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath
shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of
their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them
of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he
hath sent empty away. 54
As has become my habit, I spent some time reading the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke this week. We all remember the second chapter of Luke best, I think, how Caesar wanted to take a census so he'd know how much money he could bleed from Rome's conquests, how Joseph and Mary journeyed to Bethlehem, just east of Jerusalem, and how Jesus was born there in a stable because the Holiday Inn of two thousand years ago was full.
The quote at the beginning of this entry is from the first chapter of Luke, however, probably not read as often and Mary is the speaker. I doubt it gets a reading around the Koch brothers' Christmas dinner table at any rate. Was Mary in favor of "income redistribution?" Would she have relied on private charity for unfortunate people or would she have supported government action on their behalf, and I don't just mean Caesar's public works program in Rome, shovel-ready though it might have been.
Two other things struck me as I read the gospel stories. First, on two occasions, Jospeh bases his actions on dreams, taking Mary and the baby to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous attempt on the child's life, then returning to Israel when Herod's death is revealed to him in a dream. The ancients seem to have given much greater credence to dreams and a dreamworld than modern people do. Can you imagine the local reaction to a modern person who fled on the basis of a dream?
Then, I thought I had found a boo-boo in Matthew. The gospeler first tells us the Star of Bethlehem was seen by Wise Men in the east. Then the Wise Men are quoted saying they had seen the star in the east. It took me awhile to realize they were repeating that they were in the east, not the star, the star must have been in their western sky. Otherwise, they would have had to approach Jerusalem and Bethlehem from the west, whould would probably have required a dip in the Mediterranean Sea.
Once, years ago, I attended a planetarium show that tried to explain the star. Astronomers had made a survey of the skies, looking for the remains of a nova or supernova that might have exxploded at about that time. As I remember it, there isn't a good candidate. They then considered that there could have been a conjunction of planets or planets and stars that would have been especially bright. Jupiter, it turns out, was close to Regulus in the night sky at about the time Jesus was born.
But I believe the people of two thousand years ago were much more attentive to the night sky than we are today. They would not have mistaken something like that for a new star. As far as I'm concerned, either the Star was a miracle or it didn't happen at all.
Well, it's snowing here in Colo Spgs as I write this, five or six inches down and a little more to come. We'll have a white Christmas here, even if it's only leftover snow. For those of you in the east, I'll bet you get the storm on Christmas eve or Christmas day.
Merry Christmas. May all your cares be light.
As has become my habit, I spent some time reading the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke this week. We all remember the second chapter of Luke best, I think, how Caesar wanted to take a census so he'd know how much money he could bleed from Rome's conquests, how Joseph and Mary journeyed to Bethlehem, just east of Jerusalem, and how Jesus was born there in a stable because the Holiday Inn of two thousand years ago was full.
The quote at the beginning of this entry is from the first chapter of Luke, however, probably not read as often and Mary is the speaker. I doubt it gets a reading around the Koch brothers' Christmas dinner table at any rate. Was Mary in favor of "income redistribution?" Would she have relied on private charity for unfortunate people or would she have supported government action on their behalf, and I don't just mean Caesar's public works program in Rome, shovel-ready though it might have been.
Two other things struck me as I read the gospel stories. First, on two occasions, Jospeh bases his actions on dreams, taking Mary and the baby to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous attempt on the child's life, then returning to Israel when Herod's death is revealed to him in a dream. The ancients seem to have given much greater credence to dreams and a dreamworld than modern people do. Can you imagine the local reaction to a modern person who fled on the basis of a dream?
Then, I thought I had found a boo-boo in Matthew. The gospeler first tells us the Star of Bethlehem was seen by Wise Men in the east. Then the Wise Men are quoted saying they had seen the star in the east. It took me awhile to realize they were repeating that they were in the east, not the star, the star must have been in their western sky. Otherwise, they would have had to approach Jerusalem and Bethlehem from the west, whould would probably have required a dip in the Mediterranean Sea.
Once, years ago, I attended a planetarium show that tried to explain the star. Astronomers had made a survey of the skies, looking for the remains of a nova or supernova that might have exxploded at about that time. As I remember it, there isn't a good candidate. They then considered that there could have been a conjunction of planets or planets and stars that would have been especially bright. Jupiter, it turns out, was close to Regulus in the night sky at about the time Jesus was born.
But I believe the people of two thousand years ago were much more attentive to the night sky than we are today. They would not have mistaken something like that for a new star. As far as I'm concerned, either the Star was a miracle or it didn't happen at all.
Well, it's snowing here in Colo Spgs as I write this, five or six inches down and a little more to come. We'll have a white Christmas here, even if it's only leftover snow. For those of you in the east, I'll bet you get the storm on Christmas eve or Christmas day.
Merry Christmas. May all your cares be light.
Monday, December 19, 2011
"Circle of Steel" by Gordon Lightfoot
Rows of lights in a circle of steel
Where you place your bets on a great big wheel
High windows flickerin' down through the snow
A time you know
Sights and sounds of the people goin' 'round
Everybody's in step with the season
A child is born to a welfare case
Where the rats run around like they own the place
The room is chilly, the building is old
That's how it goes
The doctor's found on his welfare round
And he comes and he leaves on the double
Deck The Halls was the song they played
In the flat next door where they shout all day
She tips her gin bottle back till it's gone
The child is strong
A week, a day, they will take it away
For they know about all her bad habits
Christmas dawns and the snow lets up
And the sun hits the handle of her heirloom cup
She hides her face in her hands for a while
Says look here child
Your father's pride was his means to provide
And he's servin' three years for that reason
Rows of lights in a circle of steel
Where you place your bets on a great big wheel
High windows flickerin' down through the snow
A time you know
Sights and sounds of the people goin' 'round
Everybody's in step with the season
Where you place your bets on a great big wheel
High windows flickerin' down through the snow
A time you know
Sights and sounds of the people goin' 'round
Everybody's in step with the season
A child is born to a welfare case
Where the rats run around like they own the place
The room is chilly, the building is old
That's how it goes
The doctor's found on his welfare round
And he comes and he leaves on the double
Deck The Halls was the song they played
In the flat next door where they shout all day
She tips her gin bottle back till it's gone
The child is strong
A week, a day, they will take it away
For they know about all her bad habits
Christmas dawns and the snow lets up
And the sun hits the handle of her heirloom cup
She hides her face in her hands for a while
Says look here child
Your father's pride was his means to provide
And he's servin' three years for that reason
Rows of lights in a circle of steel
Where you place your bets on a great big wheel
High windows flickerin' down through the snow
A time you know
Sights and sounds of the people goin' 'round
Everybody's in step with the season
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The Tax Cut Deal
House GOP leaders want new payroll tax cut bill
By ALAN FRAM Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:06 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top House Republicans rebelled Sunday against a bipartisan, Senate-approved bill extending payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits for two months.
The House GOP defiance cast uncertainty over how quickly Congress would forestall a tax increase otherwise heading straight at 160 million workers beginning New Year's Day. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said it could be finished within two weeks, which suggested that lawmakers might have to spend much of their usual holiday break battling each other in the Capitol.
A day after rank-and-file House GOP lawmakers used a conference call to spew venom against the Senate-passed bill, Boehner said he opposed the legislation and wanted congressional bargainers to craft a new, yearlong version.
"The president said we shouldn't be going anywhere without getting our work done," Boehner said on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to President Barack Obama's oft-repeated promise to postpone his Christmastime trip to Hawaii if the legislation was not finished. "Let's get our work done, let's do this for a year."
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the House would vote Monday to either request formal bargaining with the Senate or to make the legislation "responsible and in line with the needs of hard-working taxpayers and middle-class families."
Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon did not specify what those changes might be, beyond a longer-lasting bill. Boehner, though, expressed support for "reasonable reductions in spending" in a House-approved payroll tax bill and for provisions that blocked some Obama administration anti-pollution rules.
Democrats leaped at what they saw as a chance to champion lower- and middle-income Americans by accusing Republicans of threatening a wide tax increase unless their demands are met. If Congress doesn't act, workers would see their take-home checks cut by 2 percentage points beginning Jan. 1, when this year's 4.2 percent payroll tax reverts to its normal 6.2 percent.
So, they want to reduce environmental protections and are holding this tax relief measure hostage to do it. They like to talk about about unnecessary regulations, but they never speccify what they have in mind. It's really all about smoke stack emission standards, though, gaining even greater profits for a few at the expense of untold numbers of suffereres from respiratory ailments.
The House GOP defiance cast uncertainty over how quickly Congress would forestall a tax increase otherwise heading straight at 160 million workers beginning New Year's Day. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said it could be finished within two weeks, which suggested that lawmakers might have to spend much of their usual holiday break battling each other in the Capitol.
A day after rank-and-file House GOP lawmakers used a conference call to spew venom against the Senate-passed bill, Boehner said he opposed the legislation and wanted congressional bargainers to craft a new, yearlong version.
"The president said we shouldn't be going anywhere without getting our work done," Boehner said on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to President Barack Obama's oft-repeated promise to postpone his Christmastime trip to Hawaii if the legislation was not finished. "Let's get our work done, let's do this for a year."
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the House would vote Monday to either request formal bargaining with the Senate or to make the legislation "responsible and in line with the needs of hard-working taxpayers and middle-class families."
Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon did not specify what those changes might be, beyond a longer-lasting bill. Boehner, though, expressed support for "reasonable reductions in spending" in a House-approved payroll tax bill and for provisions that blocked some Obama administration anti-pollution rules.
Democrats leaped at what they saw as a chance to champion lower- and middle-income Americans by accusing Republicans of threatening a wide tax increase unless their demands are met. If Congress doesn't act, workers would see their take-home checks cut by 2 percentage points beginning Jan. 1, when this year's 4.2 percent payroll tax reverts to its normal 6.2 percent.
So, they want to reduce environmental protections and are holding this tax relief measure hostage to do it. They like to talk about about unnecessary regulations, but they never speccify what they have in mind. It's really all about smoke stack emission standards, though, gaining even greater profits for a few at the expense of untold numbers of suffereres from respiratory ailments.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Rick Scott, Governor of Florida
This is a quote from the Wikipedia article on Rick Scott.
On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[20]
Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[21] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[22][23][24]
In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.
In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[4][5][6][7][8]
In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[25] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[26]
How did this guy manage to stay out of jail, much less become governor of Florida?
On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[20]
Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[21] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[22][23][24]
In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.
In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[4][5][6][7][8]
In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[25] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[26]
How did this guy manage to stay out of jail, much less become governor of Florida?
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Revolutionary Diplomacy
Back many years ago, when I was trying to get a minor in political science, I took a course in international relations, and one of the interesting facets of the worldwide scene was the difference between the way new governments and established nations negotiate. At about the time I was learning this the Paris peace talks were starting. We Americans spent a month arguing with the North Vietnamese about the shape of the conference table, so the course did have some immediate relevance.
The jist of it is that established nations set out a maximum position at the beginning of negotiations, knowing they won't get all they ask for, and are willing to surrender some objectives to gain others. Brand new governments, those that have come to power by violent or at least extralegal methods, also set out a maximum position. The difference is that they cling to this set of demands, never budging, in the expectation that their opposites will wear down and give them everything. Only when it seems as if the negotiations are about to collapse will the revolutionary government suddenly be ready to strike a deal.
I bring this up now, because it seems that the idea of intransigence has been tranferred into our own domestic political situation. The revolutionaries in now are the Congressional Republicans who have refused to compromise on much of anything, and have managed to get away with it because the president and the Democrats in Congress were unprepared for the fight the GOP gave them and - might as well just be honest - many Democrats haven't shown much backbone.
The trouble for the Republicans is that the Democrats are beginning to use the same technique, now called brinksmanship, to salvage some of their right to govern, a right based on their occupancy of the White House and a majority in the Senate.
What does this mean for the America we all love? More years of gridlock, more years when deals are finally made between a few leaders in Congress and the president at the last minute, rather than through thoughtful legislation. More chance for bad laws and bad appropriations to get through.
Woe is us.
The jist of it is that established nations set out a maximum position at the beginning of negotiations, knowing they won't get all they ask for, and are willing to surrender some objectives to gain others. Brand new governments, those that have come to power by violent or at least extralegal methods, also set out a maximum position. The difference is that they cling to this set of demands, never budging, in the expectation that their opposites will wear down and give them everything. Only when it seems as if the negotiations are about to collapse will the revolutionary government suddenly be ready to strike a deal.
I bring this up now, because it seems that the idea of intransigence has been tranferred into our own domestic political situation. The revolutionaries in now are the Congressional Republicans who have refused to compromise on much of anything, and have managed to get away with it because the president and the Democrats in Congress were unprepared for the fight the GOP gave them and - might as well just be honest - many Democrats haven't shown much backbone.
The trouble for the Republicans is that the Democrats are beginning to use the same technique, now called brinksmanship, to salvage some of their right to govern, a right based on their occupancy of the White House and a majority in the Senate.
What does this mean for the America we all love? More years of gridlock, more years when deals are finally made between a few leaders in Congress and the president at the last minute, rather than through thoughtful legislation. More chance for bad laws and bad appropriations to get through.
Woe is us.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Deck the Halls
Kris and I have been decorating our Christmas tree this afternoon. One string of lights didn't work, so we have fallen back onto a string of all red lights and decided to continue the ut theme with red ornaments. (No jokes about our red light district please.)
I've been going through other Christmas rituals this week. Movies on tap have been "The Holiday" with Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet, and "Love Actually" with a large cast, mostly of Brits. Next will be "A Christmas Story," the story of a small boy and his quest for a genuine Red Ryder bb gun and everyone's favorite "It's a Wonderful Life," reserved for Christmas eve.
Both of the first two movies are about love lost and found at Christmas time, with a bow to Channukah in "The Holiday." In "Love Actually" there's a school representation of the manger scene with the strangest collection of animals to witness the birth of Jesus ever contemplated - all aquatic beasties. No donkey or lamb, but a whale, a lobster, an octopus, and for some reason, a spider.
On a slightly more intellectual level, I've read Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol again, which I do every year. I was struck this year by how rich Dickens' prose is. Mostly though, I remember my father reading the story to us every year and how much I enjoyed it, and miss him. The story can be summed up very quickly of course. Old Ebenezer Scrooge, stingy and greedy to the core, has a little too much to drink on Christmas eve, has a series of nightmares and awakens on Christmas morning a changed man. The story thereby highlights the potential we all have to reform our lives and achieve true happiness. It's timeless, really, though Dickens places it firmly in nineteenth century London. In fact, we always had ttrouble with his descriptions, hearing the story in Miami. Fog and frost were unknown to us and we couldn't fathom the importance of cold weather in the tale.
As I type this I'm watching/listening to a production of "The Nutcracker" on PBS - never a favorite part of the Christmas season to me but it does certainly fit in with this time of year.
And I promise I will read and reflect on the gospel stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus before Christmas day. Once again, a merry Christmas to all friends and family. For those of you in northern climes, I hope it will be white.
I've been going through other Christmas rituals this week. Movies on tap have been "The Holiday" with Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet, and "Love Actually" with a large cast, mostly of Brits. Next will be "A Christmas Story," the story of a small boy and his quest for a genuine Red Ryder bb gun and everyone's favorite "It's a Wonderful Life," reserved for Christmas eve.
Both of the first two movies are about love lost and found at Christmas time, with a bow to Channukah in "The Holiday." In "Love Actually" there's a school representation of the manger scene with the strangest collection of animals to witness the birth of Jesus ever contemplated - all aquatic beasties. No donkey or lamb, but a whale, a lobster, an octopus, and for some reason, a spider.
On a slightly more intellectual level, I've read Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol again, which I do every year. I was struck this year by how rich Dickens' prose is. Mostly though, I remember my father reading the story to us every year and how much I enjoyed it, and miss him. The story can be summed up very quickly of course. Old Ebenezer Scrooge, stingy and greedy to the core, has a little too much to drink on Christmas eve, has a series of nightmares and awakens on Christmas morning a changed man. The story thereby highlights the potential we all have to reform our lives and achieve true happiness. It's timeless, really, though Dickens places it firmly in nineteenth century London. In fact, we always had ttrouble with his descriptions, hearing the story in Miami. Fog and frost were unknown to us and we couldn't fathom the importance of cold weather in the tale.
As I type this I'm watching/listening to a production of "The Nutcracker" on PBS - never a favorite part of the Christmas season to me but it does certainly fit in with this time of year.
And I promise I will read and reflect on the gospel stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus before Christmas day. Once again, a merry Christmas to all friends and family. For those of you in northern climes, I hope it will be white.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Light One Candle at Christmas
Light one candle for the Maccabee children
With thanks their light didn't die;
Light one candle for the pain they endured
When their right to exist was denied;
Light one candle for the terrible sacrifice
Justice and freedom demand;
And light one candle for the wisdom to know
That the peacemaker's time is at hand!
Chorus:
Don't let the light go out,
It's lasted for so many years!
Don't let the light go out!
Let it shine through our love and our tears!
Light one candle for the strength that we need
To never become our own foe;
Light one candle for those who are suff'ring
A pain they learned so long ago;
Light one candle for all we believe in,
That anger not tear us apart;
And light one candle to bind us together
With peace as the song in our heart!
(chorus)
What is the memory that's valued so highly
That we keep it alive in that flame?
What's the commitment to those who have died?
We cry out "they've not died in vain,"
We have come this far, always believing
That justice will somehow prevail;
This is the burden, This is the promise,
This is why we will not fail!
(chorus)
Don't let the light go out!
Don't let the light go out!
Don't let the light go out!
With thanks their light didn't die;
Light one candle for the pain they endured
When their right to exist was denied;
Light one candle for the terrible sacrifice
Justice and freedom demand;
And light one candle for the wisdom to know
That the peacemaker's time is at hand!
Chorus:
Don't let the light go out,
It's lasted for so many years!
Don't let the light go out!
Let it shine through our love and our tears!
Light one candle for the strength that we need
To never become our own foe;
Light one candle for those who are suff'ring
A pain they learned so long ago;
Light one candle for all we believe in,
That anger not tear us apart;
And light one candle to bind us together
With peace as the song in our heart!
(chorus)
What is the memory that's valued so highly
That we keep it alive in that flame?
What's the commitment to those who have died?
We cry out "they've not died in vain,"
We have come this far, always believing
That justice will somehow prevail;
This is the burden, This is the promise,
This is why we will not fail!
(chorus)
Don't let the light go out!
Don't let the light go out!
Don't let the light go out!
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, Christmas Edition
Once again, we hear from CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, the superhero with the amazing power to point out what everyone else already knows. Today CAPTAIN OBVIOUS discusses Christmas, that annual festival of goodwill and greed that so far this year has not caused a single shopping fatality from trampling in the United States.
Christmas is a time of tradition and the CAPTAIN would like to point out certain archaic words and images associated with the holiday. First, the CAPTAIN notes the use of words that are no longer used except at this time of year: "merry" and "jolly." We all say, "Merry Christmas" to each other, but do we use that word at any other time of year? "Merry Memorial Day," or "Merry birthday," just don't sound right and would provoke some interesting reactions if tried. The CAPTAIN supposes that if Robin Hood should come up in the conversation the word "merry" might be used, but that's about it.
Likewise, describe someone as "jolly" nowadays and just wait for the reaction. Have some ice handy, because someone is sure to misinterpret your comment.
Children especially like to sing about a one-horse open sleigh, but unless you're watching the movie "Christmas in Connecticut" you probably don't know what such a contraption looks like. Modern people are most apt to connect the lyrics with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. By the same token, the CAPTAIN will bet not one person in a thousand can say what a "bob-tail" refers to or why one would be festooned with bells.
Shall the CAPTAIN even discuss figgy pudding? Who among us has ever prepared or eaten the stuff? The CAPTAIN imagines the following dialog.
WIFE (in kitchen): "How can we get them to go home? They're in there singing. Off-key too!"
HUSBAND: "They're your friends. Think of something. I never wanted to have them over in the first place."
WIFE: "Now they're going on about figgy pudding and saying they won't go until they get some. Do we know how to make figgy pudding?"
HUSBAND: "There's some Fig Newtons in the pantry, left over from the Fourth of July picnic. Mash them up in a bowl, plop some whipped cream on it, tell 'em it's figgy pudding, and get them the hell out of here."
Oh tannenbaum, oh tannenbaum. Years ago some wit thought about how Mr. Spock from Star Trek would have interpreted the Christmas tree tradition. "They go into the woods and chop down some unoffending conifer, then drag it into their house and hang sparkling balls all over it. The logic escapes me."
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS will merely point out the nearly endless succession of arguments that erupt around the Christmas tree; what tree to get, how much it will be damaged on the way home, where to set it up, how many ornaments to hang on it, which ones, where they came from, why do we still have that tacky ornament, it looks like a fish in distress, you're sentimental about it, why?
You probably really don't want an answer to that question. The answer might be something like, "That was given to me by an old boyfriend, the year we spent Christmas together at a ski lodge. All day long we were on the ski slopes, and all night we. . ."
The CAPTAIN now closes by pointing out the obvious fact that here in America we all go through Christmas together. The holiday is mandatory, whether or not it includes things like eggnog or an annual Christmas letter that glosses over all of a person's failures and instead highlights the little triumphs of life. ("Susie's hours of practice on the piccolo really paid off this year as she moved up from seventh chair all the way to sixth chair in the junior high school orchestra.")
Happy Christmas to one and all. Be careful around the doorway at Walmart or Target or any other department store.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
FEARLESS PREDICTIONS for 2012
Well, after last year's mixed record, your FEARLESS prognosticator must summon all his courage (or chutzpah) to examine what hasn't even happened yet. But here we go!
Lets get the big ones out of the way right now. President Obama will be re-elected next November and by about the same margin he won by in 2008. His opponent will be Mitt Romney, the Stepford Republican, the Republican that three-quarters of Republicans would rather not have as their candidate.
Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives and Democrats will cling to their majority in the Senate. Gridlock will continue.
Having disposed of the big predictions, we can now concentrate on things that are more fun. Wedding bells for Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga! Or Brittney Spears! Or your own sister/daughter/mother/wife. Our boy Charlie does get around. (Ooh! Jennifer Lopez!)
There will be a record cold snap somewhere this winter, prompting some wag to say, "Well, we don't hear much about global warming today, do we, ha-ha."
My wife and I will take a summer vacation trip to Oregon to visit her college friend and family and see the sights. Our fifteen year old Honda will perform flawlessly. (I hope.) I'll be able to check one more state off my life list. That'll be forty-four. Forty-five if we go through Idaho.
Baby Violet Baril will sprout teeth, begin to walk and talk and be thoroughly adorable until about Christmas, when she will learn the word "No," and suddenly become impossible. That will last through 2013 and then she'll be sweet again.
There'll be additional baby news from one of our children, but I'm not saying which one.
My siblings will come to visit us in Colorado. They'll have a great time.
My wife will finally hold the monster garage sale she's been planning during all of 2011. We'll profit by about $50 for all our preparations. We'll then try to sell other items of Ebay, but with very little success. Eventually most of out stuff will get carted to Goodwill.
I will resume playing guitar after many years without the instrument. My righthand technique will get better. It couldn't be much worse.
There will be a major natural disaster somewhere in the world - tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, fire, who knows exactly what. Americans will not pay much attention unless it takes place in our own country.
That's because our attention will be riveted on the latest sex scandal. Now you'd think with all the trouble people get into because of their sexual yearnings they'd all learn to keep their pants zipped up, but no, celebrities will keep thinking they can get away with their dirty deeds.
Last but not least, I'll learn to play winning blackjack and will become a professional gambler. (This is a toned down prediction. Last year I said I'd win the Powerball lottery. Only time will tell.)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Look Back in Wonder/Horror
Yes, readers, it's time to review last year's FEARLESS PREDICTIONS to see how well (that is poorly) I anticipated 2011, back in 2010.
First of all, I fearlessly (foolishly) predicted the Dow Jones average would hit 14,000 by the end of this year. Ain't gonna make it, despite the recent surge. Republicans, far from claiming credit for the economic recovery are decrying the continuing problems, especially the unemployment rate that is still about nine percent, as predicted twelve long months ago.
Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, your prognosticator said the Red Sox and Rockies would play in the World Series. Who knew there'd be a September collapse for the Sox and the Rockies would never get rolling.
Internet speed keeps improving, as predicted, and the "aps" continue to grow like hobgoblins. This is especially true for me because I moved boldly into the 21st century (finally) with my very own high speed wireless connection.
We have kicked the can down the road by ignoring global warming for one more year. Senator Imhof managed to get through the whole year without publicly denying that warming is taking place, possibly because the GOP position has morphed to acknowledge that earth is getting hotter but it's natural and therefore nothing needs to be done.
Yet another bad prediction - no snowshoes for Christmas last year.
A better prediction - about ten Republicans did declare for president in 2011, though Sarah Palin was not one of them (yet). They have nevertheless given us plenty of entertainment, with Rick Perry filling in quite well for Ms. Palin.
Finally the prediction I'm saddest to say didn't happen. No lottery winner for this household.
Next time, FEARLESS PREDICTIONS for 2012!
Friday, November 25, 2011
Pepper Spray
The incident at UCal Davis in which a police officer sprayed pepper on a line of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators has gone viral and been shown on CNN and other news outlets. Predictably, comment has been all over the place, including some pundits who blame the protestors.
Speaking as someone whjo once worked in law enforcement, I'll chime in with a few remarks of my own. Back when I was chief ranger at Richmond National Battlefield Park, we converted from mace to pepper spray as our non-lethal weapon for incapacitating threatening people. The reasoning was that mace is a chemical agent and a person who is really determined, or under the influence of narcotics, can fight through it and continue an attack. Pepper spray, on the other hand, is a biological agent that causes an allergic reaction that no one can ignore. It will put you down.
The manafacturer provided information on use the warned against using the spray in an enclosed area or spraying into the wind. The Park Service provided training materials and guidelines for use in the field. As personnel who were expected to handle political demonstrations, we also were trained in methods of moving passive persons without hurting them.
I have no doubt that the Davis Police Department trains its officers in the uses of pepper spray, both in terms of safety and appropriateness. Judging by what I saw on the video recording, the officer greatly exceeded - indeed obliterated - his training. He needs to find another way to make his living, because he cannot be a police officer anymore. In addition, any supervisor who approved this use of the spray, or failed to stop it, should be fired.
All freedom loving people should deplore this clear violation of the civil liberties we all have been taught to hold precious.
Speaking as someone whjo once worked in law enforcement, I'll chime in with a few remarks of my own. Back when I was chief ranger at Richmond National Battlefield Park, we converted from mace to pepper spray as our non-lethal weapon for incapacitating threatening people. The reasoning was that mace is a chemical agent and a person who is really determined, or under the influence of narcotics, can fight through it and continue an attack. Pepper spray, on the other hand, is a biological agent that causes an allergic reaction that no one can ignore. It will put you down.
The manafacturer provided information on use the warned against using the spray in an enclosed area or spraying into the wind. The Park Service provided training materials and guidelines for use in the field. As personnel who were expected to handle political demonstrations, we also were trained in methods of moving passive persons without hurting them.
I have no doubt that the Davis Police Department trains its officers in the uses of pepper spray, both in terms of safety and appropriateness. Judging by what I saw on the video recording, the officer greatly exceeded - indeed obliterated - his training. He needs to find another way to make his living, because he cannot be a police officer anymore. In addition, any supervisor who approved this use of the spray, or failed to stop it, should be fired.
All freedom loving people should deplore this clear violation of the civil liberties we all have been taught to hold precious.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Virtue, Vice and Conundrums
Grammar Guy, that sourge of the illiterate and the self-satisfied, is back to continue his lonely struggle against misuse of the mother tongue. Today he tackles the ways in which we express ourselves in order to justify our bad behavior.
First of all, Grammar Guy wants us all to know he is never stubborn. He is tenacious. That is, if anyone rejects Grammar Guy's advice, that person is stubborn. If, on the other hand, Grammar Guy won't accept someone else's advice, Grammar Guy is tenacious.
Grammar Guy knows that just a little self-justification - a dash is all it takes - can make a virtue from almost any vice. Grammar Guy, for example, is never proud. Pride is a vice. Instead, our literate hero is confident.
See how easy it is? Grammar Guy is not impotent, he's chaste. He's not just a greedy bastard, he's thrifty. Jealousy is not becoming for Grammar Guy, but good healthy ambition is something he clings to.
A little more rationalization makes one eligible to participate in politics! No, no, no, no American would use all his money and influence, no matter how obtained, to dodge taxation. That's not being un-patriotic. It's being a "wealth creator." Similarly, anyone who objects to lower taxes for wealthy people isn't trying to create a more just society, that person is fomenting "class warfare."
Grammar Guy knows that his acolytes will think of other examples all by themselves. Therefore, he says adieu for now, secure in the knowledge that he's not too lazy to write anymore, he's taking a well-deserved rest.
And, happy Thanksgiving to one and all.
First of all, Grammar Guy wants us all to know he is never stubborn. He is tenacious. That is, if anyone rejects Grammar Guy's advice, that person is stubborn. If, on the other hand, Grammar Guy won't accept someone else's advice, Grammar Guy is tenacious.
Grammar Guy knows that just a little self-justification - a dash is all it takes - can make a virtue from almost any vice. Grammar Guy, for example, is never proud. Pride is a vice. Instead, our literate hero is confident.
See how easy it is? Grammar Guy is not impotent, he's chaste. He's not just a greedy bastard, he's thrifty. Jealousy is not becoming for Grammar Guy, but good healthy ambition is something he clings to.
A little more rationalization makes one eligible to participate in politics! No, no, no, no American would use all his money and influence, no matter how obtained, to dodge taxation. That's not being un-patriotic. It's being a "wealth creator." Similarly, anyone who objects to lower taxes for wealthy people isn't trying to create a more just society, that person is fomenting "class warfare."
Grammar Guy knows that his acolytes will think of other examples all by themselves. Therefore, he says adieu for now, secure in the knowledge that he's not too lazy to write anymore, he's taking a well-deserved rest.
And, happy Thanksgiving to one and all.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
China
Is China a threat? A friend or a foe? Herman Cain doesn't know, thinks China might develop a nuclear weapon 47 years after they actually did so, but perhaps we can explore the question free from hystrionics and ignorance.
The Chinese are exporting enormous quantities of goods, and Chinese bankers have become a financial power during the last few years. Aside from setting Mao spinning around in his grave, this has caused a great deal of concern here. We're in hock up to our ears to the Chinese and scared they'll call our debts at some time when we're unable to repay them - like now for example.
The Chinese military is flexing its muscles and has become a regional power. President Obama just announced that we will now have a small military presence in Australia, and who else can it be aimed at containing? My own opinion is that the Chinese are contained pretty well already by the nations of southeast Asia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Still, their target would be Taiwan and they'll probably expand their influence economically rather than militarily.
So, we run a big fat trade deficit with China, and must pay them large amounts of money as interest on loans they've made to us. But China has its own problems. The population of China has assumedly nearly stabilized, but that means its aging and they will have huge health care costs in coming years. Every bit as bad, the environmental degradation in China has been severe and is getting worse as China becomes a larger consumer of resources. Finally, the Chinese prosperity is distributed very unevenly - modernization is transforming Chinese cities, but much of the countryside remains poor and backward.
Should we be worried? I think a stable prosperous China is much to the advantage of the United States. Eventually they'll want to spend the money they're raking in now and we should be there to sell them our products, leveling out that trade imbalance. As China prospers, Chinese workers will be able to demand more money and government services, making their goods more expensive and foreign products more attractive. (This presumes that its oligarchical rulers can be compelled to loosen their grip on the government.)
China will continue to emerge as a major world power no matter what our attitude is. Lets make the best of the situation by wary diplomacy, not forgetting Tienanman Square, but realizing the best form of diplomacy is to do business with governments that are doing business.
(Funny. Seventy years ago when China was in chaos and much of the country was occupied by the Japanese, President Roosevelt was far-sighted enough to see that it would become a great nation, as it has been for millennia.)
The Chinese are exporting enormous quantities of goods, and Chinese bankers have become a financial power during the last few years. Aside from setting Mao spinning around in his grave, this has caused a great deal of concern here. We're in hock up to our ears to the Chinese and scared they'll call our debts at some time when we're unable to repay them - like now for example.
The Chinese military is flexing its muscles and has become a regional power. President Obama just announced that we will now have a small military presence in Australia, and who else can it be aimed at containing? My own opinion is that the Chinese are contained pretty well already by the nations of southeast Asia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Still, their target would be Taiwan and they'll probably expand their influence economically rather than militarily.
So, we run a big fat trade deficit with China, and must pay them large amounts of money as interest on loans they've made to us. But China has its own problems. The population of China has assumedly nearly stabilized, but that means its aging and they will have huge health care costs in coming years. Every bit as bad, the environmental degradation in China has been severe and is getting worse as China becomes a larger consumer of resources. Finally, the Chinese prosperity is distributed very unevenly - modernization is transforming Chinese cities, but much of the countryside remains poor and backward.
Should we be worried? I think a stable prosperous China is much to the advantage of the United States. Eventually they'll want to spend the money they're raking in now and we should be there to sell them our products, leveling out that trade imbalance. As China prospers, Chinese workers will be able to demand more money and government services, making their goods more expensive and foreign products more attractive. (This presumes that its oligarchical rulers can be compelled to loosen their grip on the government.)
China will continue to emerge as a major world power no matter what our attitude is. Lets make the best of the situation by wary diplomacy, not forgetting Tienanman Square, but realizing the best form of diplomacy is to do business with governments that are doing business.
(Funny. Seventy years ago when China was in chaos and much of the country was occupied by the Japanese, President Roosevelt was far-sighted enough to see that it would become a great nation, as it has been for millennia.)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The GOP Horserace
Okay, sports fans, as the GOP contenders pound through the backstretch and approach the far turn it's time to see how they're doing and handicap the finish.
Jon Huntsman: trailing the field and there's no way he can close ground on the leaders.
Michelle Bachman: stuck her nose in front before the first turn, but now is fading and will finish way up the track.
Newt Gingrich: has been biding his time hoping for the frontrunners to stumble. It won't matter. He doesn't have any speed.
Rick Perry: had his moment in front, now fading fast. Falling over his own feet. It's hard to run when you keep getting your hoof caught in your mouth.
Ron Paul: favorite of longshot betters, but no chance.
Herman Cain: another longshot prior to the race, surprisingly had the lead but badly bumped and can't change his leads.
Mitt Romney: properly positioned just behind the pace setters, ready to take the lead as they enter the stretch, but will payoff very little to his backers.
Unfortunately for these racers, the purse for this race will be very small, just a sentence or two in the history books. In next fall's match race, Barack Obama will be the winner.
Jon Huntsman: trailing the field and there's no way he can close ground on the leaders.
Michelle Bachman: stuck her nose in front before the first turn, but now is fading and will finish way up the track.
Newt Gingrich: has been biding his time hoping for the frontrunners to stumble. It won't matter. He doesn't have any speed.
Rick Perry: had his moment in front, now fading fast. Falling over his own feet. It's hard to run when you keep getting your hoof caught in your mouth.
Ron Paul: favorite of longshot betters, but no chance.
Herman Cain: another longshot prior to the race, surprisingly had the lead but badly bumped and can't change his leads.
Mitt Romney: properly positioned just behind the pace setters, ready to take the lead as they enter the stretch, but will payoff very little to his backers.
Unfortunately for these racers, the purse for this race will be very small, just a sentence or two in the history books. In next fall's match race, Barack Obama will be the winner.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
An Apostate Catholic
Shortly after moving to Colorado back in 2005, I stopped attending mass. There are a number of reasons why I became a Catholic in name only, and why I'm now considering starting to participate in the faith again.
First of all, let me say my rejection of the forms of the Catholic tradition had little to do with the sex scandals that erupted in the 1990's. Personally, I think the celibacy rule for priests is just silly and in fact contradicts the roots of the Christian tradition. Peter, after all, was married or widowed and there's no reason to think the other apostles were single men. For that matter, it seems likely to me that Jesus must have been married - otherwise, the implication is that he was gay.
No, the sex scandals were the horrific result of an unrealistic requirement imposed on men who had, or thought they had, a vocation. What troubled me about the church as an institution was first the cover-up of the scandal, which amounted to obstruction of justice, and a tacit willingness to permit pedophiles to continue preying on children, and second the accumulated resources of the church that allowed payment of settlements to the vicitms totaling more than $100 million.
Where'd the church get that kind of money? Every Catholic parish I ever attended periodically claimed it was on the ragged edge of insolvency and begged for greater donations from the faithful. They were sitting on enormous financial resources while "guilting" parishioners who very often were people of modest means, struggling with their own finances. That was a turn-off.
On a less profound level, I have become used to a leisurely Sunday morning spent with a second or third cup of coffee and the Sunday newspaper. Mass can't compete with the Los Angeles Times crossword puzzle. Since I work on Saturdays and Mondays, Sunday became a day of rest in the literal sense and I have enjoyed not having to get dressed and go anywhere.
But after half a decade away, I'm thinking of going back. Part of my reasoning is that attending a time honored activity is what we once called a "warm fuzzy," that is a group gathering that takes us back to childhood, back to happy times now recollected as life begins its inexorable passage to its inexorable end.
Another part of the same feeling comes from the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." My dad especially was what we used to describe as "More Catholic than the pope." Dropping back into the forms of the faith is a way of remembering them both and paying homage to their way of life.
Even more than that, I feel a real resurgence of the idea of a social gospel now. After decades of individualist Christianity, we once again are seeing what I believe is the true essence of the faith, the simple thought that we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers and are commanded to help one another in this world, rather than emphasize a world to come that is attained by a head in the clouds type of faith. I guess I reject Lutheranism and fundamentalist Christianity all in the same breath here. And I'm not speaking about getting on the building committee or anything like that. What I mean is the old "corporal works of mercy" - feeding the hungry, giving comfort to the sick, seeking justice. Following, in short, the Sermon on the Mount.
So maybe I'll get involved in the church again. Meanwhile, what's a seven letter word for "collectibles from faraway lands?" The second letter is x.
First of all, let me say my rejection of the forms of the Catholic tradition had little to do with the sex scandals that erupted in the 1990's. Personally, I think the celibacy rule for priests is just silly and in fact contradicts the roots of the Christian tradition. Peter, after all, was married or widowed and there's no reason to think the other apostles were single men. For that matter, it seems likely to me that Jesus must have been married - otherwise, the implication is that he was gay.
No, the sex scandals were the horrific result of an unrealistic requirement imposed on men who had, or thought they had, a vocation. What troubled me about the church as an institution was first the cover-up of the scandal, which amounted to obstruction of justice, and a tacit willingness to permit pedophiles to continue preying on children, and second the accumulated resources of the church that allowed payment of settlements to the vicitms totaling more than $100 million.
Where'd the church get that kind of money? Every Catholic parish I ever attended periodically claimed it was on the ragged edge of insolvency and begged for greater donations from the faithful. They were sitting on enormous financial resources while "guilting" parishioners who very often were people of modest means, struggling with their own finances. That was a turn-off.
On a less profound level, I have become used to a leisurely Sunday morning spent with a second or third cup of coffee and the Sunday newspaper. Mass can't compete with the Los Angeles Times crossword puzzle. Since I work on Saturdays and Mondays, Sunday became a day of rest in the literal sense and I have enjoyed not having to get dressed and go anywhere.
But after half a decade away, I'm thinking of going back. Part of my reasoning is that attending a time honored activity is what we once called a "warm fuzzy," that is a group gathering that takes us back to childhood, back to happy times now recollected as life begins its inexorable passage to its inexorable end.
Another part of the same feeling comes from the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." My dad especially was what we used to describe as "More Catholic than the pope." Dropping back into the forms of the faith is a way of remembering them both and paying homage to their way of life.
Even more than that, I feel a real resurgence of the idea of a social gospel now. After decades of individualist Christianity, we once again are seeing what I believe is the true essence of the faith, the simple thought that we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers and are commanded to help one another in this world, rather than emphasize a world to come that is attained by a head in the clouds type of faith. I guess I reject Lutheranism and fundamentalist Christianity all in the same breath here. And I'm not speaking about getting on the building committee or anything like that. What I mean is the old "corporal works of mercy" - feeding the hungry, giving comfort to the sick, seeking justice. Following, in short, the Sermon on the Mount.
So maybe I'll get involved in the church again. Meanwhile, what's a seven letter word for "collectibles from faraway lands?" The second letter is x.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Sad Saga of Herman Cain
As of last night, Mr. Herman Cain was still struggling over the allegations of two, three or six women that he had harassed them sexually back in the 1990's. After denying any such thing had ever taken place he then admitted that cash settlements were made on two of the women though he had no knowledge of those settlements.
Cain is hardly the first man ever to be so accused. He's also not the first guy who ever twisted in the wind trying to explain himself. In his case, the accusations gain credibility because of the number of different women involved and his strange way of defending himself.
This is a man who has been a great success in the business world, and we might suspect he owes that success to his attention to his business dealings. So how could a man so involved with his own life have no idea that settlements valued in five figures had been made from his personal resources to get rid of lawsuits? It doesn't compute. He looks like a cad or a fool.
As far as the accusations themselves are concerned, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
It does bother me that the Republicans have for years postured themselves as the guardians of private morality, when in fact they are no less inclined to transgress than anyone else.
Cain is hardly the first man ever to be so accused. He's also not the first guy who ever twisted in the wind trying to explain himself. In his case, the accusations gain credibility because of the number of different women involved and his strange way of defending himself.
This is a man who has been a great success in the business world, and we might suspect he owes that success to his attention to his business dealings. So how could a man so involved with his own life have no idea that settlements valued in five figures had been made from his personal resources to get rid of lawsuits? It doesn't compute. He looks like a cad or a fool.
As far as the accusations themselves are concerned, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
It does bother me that the Republicans have for years postured themselves as the guardians of private morality, when in fact they are no less inclined to transgress than anyone else.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Deuteronomy 15, 1-11
1: At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 2: And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD's release. 3: Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release; 4: Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it: 5: Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day. 6: For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. 7: If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: 8: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. 9: Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. 10: Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. 11: For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
I wonder what the people at PayDay Loans think about this!
I wonder what the people at PayDay Loans think about this!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Always the police raids against Occupy camps seem to come at night, under cover of darkness when most others are asleep."Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, 'Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns'" (Lk 22.52-53).
Far be it from me to compare the Occupy groups to Jesus, and I spent most of my career in law enforcement, but this is still an iteresting parallel.
Far be it from me to compare the Occupy groups to Jesus, and I spent most of my career in law enforcement, but this is still an iteresting parallel.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
My Sister is the 99%
My sister, age 59, has Alzheimer's disease. It has now reached the point where she can barely speak at all and doesn't recognize her own home. She has anxiety attacks, and this afternoon tried to leave home for the first time, another sign the illness is getting worse.
Her husband has taken extremely good care of her, hiring an in-home care giver, and helping her in every way he can. My information is they have gone through their savings and investments. He would sell their home and find something less roomy but the housing market in Florida is so bad there are no takers at anything like the appraised or assessed value.
Because she is 59 she doesn't qualify for Medicare and since they still have some assets they can't get Medicaid either. She will need longterm care soon, but without insurance coverage for that, they will be bankrupt.
It isn't fair and it isn't right. In this great country, no one should have to go broke to pay for needed medical care. No one should be turned out of the home they worked so many years to afford because of a calamity like this.
That's why I stand with the 99%, and do what I can to help Occupy Colorado Springs. She would too if she knew what's going on.
Her husband has taken extremely good care of her, hiring an in-home care giver, and helping her in every way he can. My information is they have gone through their savings and investments. He would sell their home and find something less roomy but the housing market in Florida is so bad there are no takers at anything like the appraised or assessed value.
Because she is 59 she doesn't qualify for Medicare and since they still have some assets they can't get Medicaid either. She will need longterm care soon, but without insurance coverage for that, they will be bankrupt.
It isn't fair and it isn't right. In this great country, no one should have to go broke to pay for needed medical care. No one should be turned out of the home they worked so many years to afford because of a calamity like this.
That's why I stand with the 99%, and do what I can to help Occupy Colorado Springs. She would too if she knew what's going on.
Monday, October 24, 2011
I Am the 99%
Probably I'm pretty well off, at least comparatively. I draw a government pension for my twenty-five years of work for the National Park Service. Since it's under the Civil Service Retirement System, it's outside Social Security, so when I reach retirement age I'll be able to "double dip" and collect a second benefit.
You might think that sounds rather cushy, or even vaguely immoral, but I have worked the forty quarters needed for Social Security after I left government service. Thanks to Congress' never ending battle against freeloaders like myself, my Social Security benefit will be reduced by between half and two-thirds, meaning I'll collect the grand sum of about $300 a month from them.
Meanwhile, although there have been cost of living adjustments to my government pension, the cost of health insurance premiums has risen faster, so today the purchasing power of my pension is somewhere between ten and twenty percent less than it was when I first started receiving it. I'm still employed, as I knew I would have to be, but without the largess of my mother-in-law, retirement would have been a pipedream.
Ten years after leaving graduate school, which I attended to take up a second career as a high school teacher, I'm still paying off student loans. (I wonder if I'm the oldest Anerican still paying these loans.)
But don't worry about me. Worry about all the other retirees who are barely scraping by, the working poor, single parents, those who are chronically ill, homeless veterans and the legion of people who are being nickeled and dimed to death by corporate America.
I am the 99% and am in solidarity with all of them.
You might think that sounds rather cushy, or even vaguely immoral, but I have worked the forty quarters needed for Social Security after I left government service. Thanks to Congress' never ending battle against freeloaders like myself, my Social Security benefit will be reduced by between half and two-thirds, meaning I'll collect the grand sum of about $300 a month from them.
Meanwhile, although there have been cost of living adjustments to my government pension, the cost of health insurance premiums has risen faster, so today the purchasing power of my pension is somewhere between ten and twenty percent less than it was when I first started receiving it. I'm still employed, as I knew I would have to be, but without the largess of my mother-in-law, retirement would have been a pipedream.
Ten years after leaving graduate school, which I attended to take up a second career as a high school teacher, I'm still paying off student loans. (I wonder if I'm the oldest Anerican still paying these loans.)
But don't worry about me. Worry about all the other retirees who are barely scraping by, the working poor, single parents, those who are chronically ill, homeless veterans and the legion of people who are being nickeled and dimed to death by corporate America.
I am the 99% and am in solidarity with all of them.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Words Unspoken
So, I was driving through the supermarket parking lot yesterday, when coming towards me were a teenage boy and girl. There was some tomfoolery going on between them that ended when the boy shouted, "Give me my fucking hat, bitch!"
He snatched the hat from her and the two walked in different directions. I was minding the other cars in the parking lot, so didn't say anything, though I wish now I had. What I would have said was, "Dump him quick, girl. You can do much much better. Stick with him and you're guaranteed a life of unhappiness."
So often we regret what we haven't said, regret what we didn't do. My cousin Bob, the minister, had a good piece recently on the epistle of James, and about the fair weather friends who offer words of comfort without giving any material aid to people in distress. But words can help too, I'm convinced, and I didn't say any of them to that teenage girl.
What would I have said to the boy? "Clean it up. You gotta treat other people decently if you want to keep them in your life?" I probably would have earned a one-fingered salute.
There's a line from the movie "A Man for All Seasons" that I think of often: "We must just hope that when your head stops spinning your face is to the front again." It's a fancy way of saying "Grow up," but I really like it.
He snatched the hat from her and the two walked in different directions. I was minding the other cars in the parking lot, so didn't say anything, though I wish now I had. What I would have said was, "Dump him quick, girl. You can do much much better. Stick with him and you're guaranteed a life of unhappiness."
So often we regret what we haven't said, regret what we didn't do. My cousin Bob, the minister, had a good piece recently on the epistle of James, and about the fair weather friends who offer words of comfort without giving any material aid to people in distress. But words can help too, I'm convinced, and I didn't say any of them to that teenage girl.
What would I have said to the boy? "Clean it up. You gotta treat other people decently if you want to keep them in your life?" I probably would have earned a one-fingered salute.
There's a line from the movie "A Man for All Seasons" that I think of often: "We must just hope that when your head stops spinning your face is to the front again." It's a fancy way of saying "Grow up," but I really like it.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Vatican Rocks! (For Once)
Vatican to Issue Radical Document on Economy By Fr. Tom Reese, S.J.
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by James
in
B16
catholic
economy
Occupy Wall Street
548Share
tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.ourdailythread.org//content/vatican-issue-radical-document-economy-thomas-j-reese-sj';
1comments
comment
On Monday, the Vatican will release a document on the reform of the international financial system which will be to the left of every politician in the United States. It will be closer to views of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement than anyone in the U.S. Congress. It will call for the redistribution of wealth and the regulation of the world economy by international agencies. Not only will it be to the left of Barack Obama, it will be to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
It is easy to predict what will be in the document by simply looking at what Pope Benedict XVI has said in the past. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Pope Benedict’s encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by “an ethics which is people-centered.”
Profit is not an end in itself but a means toward the common good. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal,” he writes, “if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.” That certainly proved true by the economic greed and reluctance that caused the recent recession.
The Pope decries “Corruption and illegality” that are evident in the economic and political classes in both rich and poor countries. He also says that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers.”
Benedict, like his predecessor Paul VI, hoped that economic development would produce real and genuinely sustainable growth, of benefit to everyone. Benedict disappointedly acknowledges that “The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase” [italics in text]. He does not accept the trickle-down theory which says that all boats will rise with the economic tide. Benedict, like Paul VI, decries the “The scandal of glaring inequalities” and sees a role for government in the redistribution of wealth.
“The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require,” he affirms, “that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.”
The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place, but he notes that globalization “makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers.” True “development of peoples,” he writes, “depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side.” The goal of such development, he says, is “rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy.”
Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that “Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.”
Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone. What does he mean by “decent employment”? It “means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.”
The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. “The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way,” he writes. “In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
Benedict even supports an international “political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.” The purpose of this world authority would be “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration....”
While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy.” He unflinchingly supports the “redistribution of wealth” when he talks about the role of government. “Grave imbalances are produced,” he writes, “when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
In short, Benedict is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to “redistribution of wealth” or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? On economic issues, the pope is to the left of Obama. He is even to the left of liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.
Login or register to post comments
Comments
Catholic Social Teaching in political boxes?
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by Roaming Catholic
Login or register to post comments
"Left of Nancy Pelosi" is probably an oversimplification. It sounds more in line with the distributism of Rerm Novarum, which rejected any concentrated control of resources, whether in the hands of the state (socialism) or of a wealthy elite (laissez-faire capitalism). Actually, the pope's concern for human-centered economy is just following the whole trajectory of Catholic Social Teaching with its fundamental tenet of universal human dignity.
This is the same thing the Vatican has been saying for the past 120 years. The Catholic Left doesn't like to admit this because it doesn't fit their caricature of the pope, and the Catholic Right doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their narrow conception of tradition and church teaching.
I feel proud to be Catholic when the pope comes out with something like this, which (as in all of CST) doesn't fit any of our ideological molds. And then I feel embarrassed to be Catholic when people immediately try to make it fit a political mold anyway, and the reactions are predictably polarized.
Advertisements
Our Friends
America Magazine
Bold Faith Type
Busted Halo
Catholic Democrats PAC
Catholics in Alliance Common Good Forum
Commonweal
National Catholic Reporter
The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
The Reluctant Prophet
U.S. Catholic
Our Daily Thread is a project of Catholics United
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by James
in
B16
catholic
economy
Occupy Wall Street
548Share
tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.ourdailythread.org//content/vatican-issue-radical-document-economy-thomas-j-reese-sj';
1comments
comment
On Monday, the Vatican will release a document on the reform of the international financial system which will be to the left of every politician in the United States. It will be closer to views of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement than anyone in the U.S. Congress. It will call for the redistribution of wealth and the regulation of the world economy by international agencies. Not only will it be to the left of Barack Obama, it will be to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
It is easy to predict what will be in the document by simply looking at what Pope Benedict XVI has said in the past. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Pope Benedict’s encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by “an ethics which is people-centered.”
Profit is not an end in itself but a means toward the common good. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal,” he writes, “if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.” That certainly proved true by the economic greed and reluctance that caused the recent recession.
The Pope decries “Corruption and illegality” that are evident in the economic and political classes in both rich and poor countries. He also says that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers.”
Benedict, like his predecessor Paul VI, hoped that economic development would produce real and genuinely sustainable growth, of benefit to everyone. Benedict disappointedly acknowledges that “The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase” [italics in text]. He does not accept the trickle-down theory which says that all boats will rise with the economic tide. Benedict, like Paul VI, decries the “The scandal of glaring inequalities” and sees a role for government in the redistribution of wealth.
“The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require,” he affirms, “that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.”
The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place, but he notes that globalization “makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers.” True “development of peoples,” he writes, “depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side.” The goal of such development, he says, is “rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy.”
Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that “Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.”
Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone. What does he mean by “decent employment”? It “means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.”
The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. “The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way,” he writes. “In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
Benedict even supports an international “political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.” The purpose of this world authority would be “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration....”
While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy.” He unflinchingly supports the “redistribution of wealth” when he talks about the role of government. “Grave imbalances are produced,” he writes, “when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
In short, Benedict is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to “redistribution of wealth” or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? On economic issues, the pope is to the left of Obama. He is even to the left of liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.
Login or register to post comments
Comments
Catholic Social Teaching in political boxes?
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by Roaming Catholic
Login or register to post comments
"Left of Nancy Pelosi" is probably an oversimplification. It sounds more in line with the distributism of Rerm Novarum, which rejected any concentrated control of resources, whether in the hands of the state (socialism) or of a wealthy elite (laissez-faire capitalism). Actually, the pope's concern for human-centered economy is just following the whole trajectory of Catholic Social Teaching with its fundamental tenet of universal human dignity.
This is the same thing the Vatican has been saying for the past 120 years. The Catholic Left doesn't like to admit this because it doesn't fit their caricature of the pope, and the Catholic Right doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their narrow conception of tradition and church teaching.
I feel proud to be Catholic when the pope comes out with something like this, which (as in all of CST) doesn't fit any of our ideological molds. And then I feel embarrassed to be Catholic when people immediately try to make it fit a political mold anyway, and the reactions are predictably polarized.
Advertisements
Our Friends
America Magazine
Bold Faith Type
Busted Halo
Catholic Democrats PAC
Catholics in Alliance Common Good Forum
Commonweal
National Catholic Reporter
The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
The Reluctant Prophet
U.S. Catholic
Our Daily Thread is a project of Catholics United
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
In Which He Gets Far Above Himself
Did I ever tell you that I once met the Princess Anastasia (as she claimed to be)? Well, I did. It was on Yorktown Day, October 19 of either 1980 or 1982, and I thought of it just now because Yorktown Day has come around once again. I hope everyone sent their Yorktown Day greeting cards early this year and you will all commemorate the occasion with proper dignified festivities.
Anyway, it was Yorktown Day and my assignment as a park ranger was to keep the small parking lot across the street from the Victory Monument clear during the wreath laying ceremony. The governor of Virginia would do the honors.
Shortly before the governor was to arrive, however, an old rattletrap stationwagon pulled in to the parking lot before I could stop it. I went over to the car to tell the driver he's have to move, but an elderly gent climbed out as I approached and introduced himself as a Dr. Manahan of the University of Virginia and said he had Princess Anastasia in the car with him. As I tried to explain that I didn't care who he was he would still have to remove his car I heard what I can only describe as a kind of barking from the passenger seat. Dr. Manahan and I went to the passenger side of the car, I because I was concerned that someone was being abused, but Manahan explained that the Princess had been stricken by a stroke and no longer could speak.
Well, of course I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them, ewspecially as I looked at the squalor of the car they had, but still had to insist that they move, which they reluctantly did.
And that's how I not only met royalty, but actually gave it the boot. (Almost everyone now agrees that the woman was in truth named Anna Andersen, and her claims to the throne of Russia were a mad delusion.)
Anyway, it was Yorktown Day and my assignment as a park ranger was to keep the small parking lot across the street from the Victory Monument clear during the wreath laying ceremony. The governor of Virginia would do the honors.
Shortly before the governor was to arrive, however, an old rattletrap stationwagon pulled in to the parking lot before I could stop it. I went over to the car to tell the driver he's have to move, but an elderly gent climbed out as I approached and introduced himself as a Dr. Manahan of the University of Virginia and said he had Princess Anastasia in the car with him. As I tried to explain that I didn't care who he was he would still have to remove his car I heard what I can only describe as a kind of barking from the passenger seat. Dr. Manahan and I went to the passenger side of the car, I because I was concerned that someone was being abused, but Manahan explained that the Princess had been stricken by a stroke and no longer could speak.
Well, of course I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them, ewspecially as I looked at the squalor of the car they had, but still had to insist that they move, which they reluctantly did.
And that's how I not only met royalty, but actually gave it the boot. (Almost everyone now agrees that the woman was in truth named Anna Andersen, and her claims to the throne of Russia were a mad delusion.)
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Colorado Springs?
Yes, there is an Occupy Colorado Springs cadre, camped on the sidewalk adjacent to Acacia Park in the downtown area. Kris and I went by to talk with the few people there on Friday, took them some supplies and intend to get back to them soon. Meanwhile, in Denver police moved in on an Occupy camp there, dispersed the campers, made a few arrests and stories for all the newscasts and the Denver Post.
It's possible the CSPD will react in a similar fashion despite the fact that here the camp-in is on the sidewalk, not in the park. Not being an attorney or a judge, I'll pass on commenting about the Constitutionality of police stifling a demonstration, and just relate the events in Denver to a different police activity here in Colo Spgs.
Attempting to ascertain whether waitresses at the local Hooters restaurant were serving alcohol to underage persons or to people who were already intoxicated, the department sent undercover officers to the Hooters. Results seem to have been negative, but the local newspaper has been in full war-cry about it because officers were drinking on duty and were devoting time and manpower to this activity when there are other more important crimes to investigate.
Surely if investigating violations of the liquor laws is (comparatively) unimportant, devoting police resources to a few individuals whose only offense is partially blocking a sidewalk is even more of a waste of time. We'll see how it comes out and if our paper with its Libertarian editorial stance notices.
It's possible the CSPD will react in a similar fashion despite the fact that here the camp-in is on the sidewalk, not in the park. Not being an attorney or a judge, I'll pass on commenting about the Constitutionality of police stifling a demonstration, and just relate the events in Denver to a different police activity here in Colo Spgs.
Attempting to ascertain whether waitresses at the local Hooters restaurant were serving alcohol to underage persons or to people who were already intoxicated, the department sent undercover officers to the Hooters. Results seem to have been negative, but the local newspaper has been in full war-cry about it because officers were drinking on duty and were devoting time and manpower to this activity when there are other more important crimes to investigate.
Surely if investigating violations of the liquor laws is (comparatively) unimportant, devoting police resources to a few individuals whose only offense is partially blocking a sidewalk is even more of a waste of time. We'll see how it comes out and if our paper with its Libertarian editorial stance notices.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Grammar Guy Returns
Lets eat Grandma!
(INCORRECT)
Lets eat, Grandma!
(CORRECT)
Punctuation saves lives. But that's not what Grammar Guy wants to disccuss today. Today, Grammar Guy would like to address conundrums, those statements or word combinations that immediately contradict themselves or make no sense.
Since Grammar Guy likes and respects Captain Obvvious, this blog's other superhero, he'll not intrude on the Captain's prerogative to point out what everyone else already knows, and stay away from such hoary chestnuts as "military intelligence" or "conservative think tank." Instead, Grammar Guy will remind readers that he teased them about a month ago with "crucial straw poll," and now presents three more examples of expressions that just defy ordinary reason.
"Instant classic" is the first of today's ridiculous combos. Grammar Guy heard it last week in a reference to the pitcher's duel between Chris Carpenter and Roy Halladay. The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Philadelphia Phillies 1-0 as Carpenter prevailed.
Now, Grammar Guy applauds the Cardinals for winning the National League diviisional series, but the salutation "instant classic" is still absurd. A classic by definition must be something that has stood the test of time. Don Larsen's World Series perfect game is a classic. Bill Mazeroski's home run to win the 1960 series is another. Both were either so above expectations or so decisive that they deserve the title. Perhaps in half a century sports fans will look back on Carpenter's effort in that light, but I doubt it. A divisional series is not a World Series.
Next, Grammar Guy addresses what is often heard on news reports, but still leaves a bone in his throat, "foul play." We're usually talking about a crime of violence here people. There's nothing in the nature of "play" about it. Yet hardly a week goes by without some local news personality saying a body has been discovered somewhere and the police suspect "foul play." I'll bet the victim of the crime didn't see anything playful about the incident.
Finally, we come to perhaps the most egregious example of all, "pure pornography." Grammar Guy is pretty sure that people who use this conundrum mean to say that something is entirely pornographic, without any redeeming value, but really! "Pure" means unattainted, and usually does refer to sexual abstinance. So how could anything legitimately be both pure and pornographic? It just can't be.
Well, that's it for today, but readers are advised that Captain Obvious will return soon to battle the political demons of our land.
Apologia: this blog inadvertently misspelled the last name of the House Majority Leader in a recent post. It's Cantor, not Kantor. Everything else stands, however.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A Balanced Budget Amendment?
Mitt Romney and his Republican competitors all are plumping for a balanced budget amendment, as if that would solve all of America's woes. It got me thinking about what the wording of such an amendment might be.
After all, it's completely unrealistic to think a balanced budget is possible in times of war. Wars cost enormous amounts of money and paying for one as it's being fought just couldn't be done.
But America has only actually declared war five times in our long history. Most military actions are not declared by Congress. Sometimes there is a lesser authorization of the use of force, but it's just as expensive whether it's a declared war or not. Would undeclared wars be exempt from the amendment's requirements?
How about national emergencies? Times when the country is threatened but not actually under attack or not vital national interest is in jeopardy.
What about severe economic downturns or calamities such as a plague or an environmental disaster. Congressman Kantor's attempt at cutting other spending to pay for hurricane relief would be the norm unless there was another clause in the amendment citing another exemption.
So here's a proposed text for a balanced budget amendment. "The government of the United States shall not spend more money than it receives in tax and other revenues for any calendar year, unless Congress declares war on someone or other, or lets the president commit American forces in some part of the world, or in outer space, or the president declares a national emergency, or Congress thinks it would be a swell idea to spend some extra money, or maybe there was a surplus last year that's just hanging around the treasury gathering dust, or Congress finds some way to cook the books to make it look like the budget is in balance without it actually being so. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation (LOL)."
It all reminds me of the Gramm-Rudman act of thirty years ago, and how long did that last?
After all, it's completely unrealistic to think a balanced budget is possible in times of war. Wars cost enormous amounts of money and paying for one as it's being fought just couldn't be done.
But America has only actually declared war five times in our long history. Most military actions are not declared by Congress. Sometimes there is a lesser authorization of the use of force, but it's just as expensive whether it's a declared war or not. Would undeclared wars be exempt from the amendment's requirements?
How about national emergencies? Times when the country is threatened but not actually under attack or not vital national interest is in jeopardy.
What about severe economic downturns or calamities such as a plague or an environmental disaster. Congressman Kantor's attempt at cutting other spending to pay for hurricane relief would be the norm unless there was another clause in the amendment citing another exemption.
So here's a proposed text for a balanced budget amendment. "The government of the United States shall not spend more money than it receives in tax and other revenues for any calendar year, unless Congress declares war on someone or other, or lets the president commit American forces in some part of the world, or in outer space, or the president declares a national emergency, or Congress thinks it would be a swell idea to spend some extra money, or maybe there was a surplus last year that's just hanging around the treasury gathering dust, or Congress finds some way to cook the books to make it look like the budget is in balance without it actually being so. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation (LOL)."
It all reminds me of the Gramm-Rudman act of thirty years ago, and how long did that last?
It Does My Heart Good
It's the middle of the night as I write this, but I just have to say it. Hurrah for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement! Just when I was ready to despair for American democracy, there's a real grassroots movement aimed at restoring some justice, not to mention sanity, in our political discourse.
I say real grassroots movement to differentiate what's happening now from the bogus Tea Party. I never really objected to the anger Tea Partiers shouted out, I only felt they were angry at all the wrong people (and rude). People who had every right to be angry took out their frustrations on the government that's trying to protect them and allowed themselves to be used as tools by the selfish wealthy of this country.
Now we have something genuine, a true phenomenon that shows us real hope for the first time since the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency, before he rolled over and turned up his toes for the Republican minority.
And naturally, the politicians who are bought and paid for are screaming their frustration, trying with all their might to make people afraid of their fellow citizens who are exercising their right of free speech. Eric Kantor, the Darth Vader of the House Republicans, voices his alarm. Here's a man who has become a multi-millionaire on a Congressional salary, worrying that stockbrokers might be inconvenienced. Kantor referred to the "Occupy" movement as a mob. Give me a break!
So I'm ready to occupy Colorado Springs, if only I could figure out what part of this suburban sprawl I live in would be the right place to do it. Join the movement! Solidarity forever!
I say real grassroots movement to differentiate what's happening now from the bogus Tea Party. I never really objected to the anger Tea Partiers shouted out, I only felt they were angry at all the wrong people (and rude). People who had every right to be angry took out their frustrations on the government that's trying to protect them and allowed themselves to be used as tools by the selfish wealthy of this country.
Now we have something genuine, a true phenomenon that shows us real hope for the first time since the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency, before he rolled over and turned up his toes for the Republican minority.
And naturally, the politicians who are bought and paid for are screaming their frustration, trying with all their might to make people afraid of their fellow citizens who are exercising their right of free speech. Eric Kantor, the Darth Vader of the House Republicans, voices his alarm. Here's a man who has become a multi-millionaire on a Congressional salary, worrying that stockbrokers might be inconvenienced. Kantor referred to the "Occupy" movement as a mob. Give me a break!
So I'm ready to occupy Colorado Springs, if only I could figure out what part of this suburban sprawl I live in would be the right place to do it. Join the movement! Solidarity forever!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Homicide
The current issue of Newsweek contains an article by David Kennedy (not from the famous Kennedy family) concerning the always distressing tendency of Americans to kill one another.
Specifically, the article discusses the situation in Cincinnati, where rioting took place in 2001 after a black Cincinnatian was shot to death by police over a traffic stop. Kennedy had previously worked in several other cities to reduce the murder rate, but Cincinnati became his greatest success story.
And the rationale for it all was quite simple. The gangbangers and other potential killers had to be persuaded that someone cares about them. A meeting was held for the "at risk" young men of the city at which a surgeon talked about both the care he provides to injured youths, the mother of a murder victim explained how painful it is to have a child killed, and the police agreed that they would land very hard on any gang member who broke the peace by killing someone else.
According to Kennedy, it worked. Homicides in Cincinnati have fallen by 41% in the last four years. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than it was.
Other cities have tried the approach and it has failed if there isn't a serious and ongoing commitment to it. But God in heaven, isn't it worth a try?
Read the article. It's worth everyone's time.
Specifically, the article discusses the situation in Cincinnati, where rioting took place in 2001 after a black Cincinnatian was shot to death by police over a traffic stop. Kennedy had previously worked in several other cities to reduce the murder rate, but Cincinnati became his greatest success story.
And the rationale for it all was quite simple. The gangbangers and other potential killers had to be persuaded that someone cares about them. A meeting was held for the "at risk" young men of the city at which a surgeon talked about both the care he provides to injured youths, the mother of a murder victim explained how painful it is to have a child killed, and the police agreed that they would land very hard on any gang member who broke the peace by killing someone else.
According to Kennedy, it worked. Homicides in Cincinnati have fallen by 41% in the last four years. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than it was.
Other cities have tried the approach and it has failed if there isn't a serious and ongoing commitment to it. But God in heaven, isn't it worth a try?
Read the article. It's worth everyone's time.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
News Items
Rachel Maddow reported last week that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, increased their net worth from about 32 billion dollars to about 50 billion dollars over the last three years. During that same time, the number of employees of Koch Industries fell from about 50,000 to about 32,000.
But we mustn't tax them any more, because that would inhibit their ability to create jobs.
The most recent ploy of people who would like to deny global warming is to allege there also is global warming on Mars, and therefore any planetary warming here is a natural phenomenon and we shouldn't try to stop it. And so, business as usual.
A quick check of Internet sources indicates that one (count 'em, one) climate scientist in Russia makes the claim about warming on Mars, and the consequent argument that warming on earth is nothing to be concerned about is refuted by all other climate scientists.
That's not to say the one scientist can't be right and all the other scientists are wrong, but we would be well advised to go with the preponderance of the evidence.
And whatever Governor Perry says, the idea that there's a conspiracy among climatologists and Al Gore to trumpet warming in order to win more government grants for climate study is just farcical.
President Obama was in Denver Tueday to campaign for his jobs bill. Yesterday's local newspaper here in Colo Spgs editorialized that the bill is a boondoggle and there must not be any tax law changes, because, "when you give money to some people, you have to take it away from other people." (Not an exact quote, but gives the spirit of what was written.)
Well, first of all, this is an odd argument coming from anyone who believes in supply side economics, and the idea that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues. Either it's a zero sum economy or it isn't guys.
Second, money has been taken from people of modest means for the last ten years and redistributed upward to the Koch brothers and others like them. If it's to be redistributed any more, I'd like it to be redistributed to people like myself for a change.
Finally, the president's job bill differs from the bailouts of two years ago in that it's aimed at public works rather than the financial apparatus of the country. Driving along local roads, I'm more than convinced that there's work to be done, even if it's nothing more grandiose than filling potholes. By the way, the same paper that bemoans the president's bill splashed a story this week, enthusiastically recommending widening Interstate 25 through our town at a cost of many millions of dollars.
No wonder people are confused.
But we mustn't tax them any more, because that would inhibit their ability to create jobs.
The most recent ploy of people who would like to deny global warming is to allege there also is global warming on Mars, and therefore any planetary warming here is a natural phenomenon and we shouldn't try to stop it. And so, business as usual.
A quick check of Internet sources indicates that one (count 'em, one) climate scientist in Russia makes the claim about warming on Mars, and the consequent argument that warming on earth is nothing to be concerned about is refuted by all other climate scientists.
That's not to say the one scientist can't be right and all the other scientists are wrong, but we would be well advised to go with the preponderance of the evidence.
And whatever Governor Perry says, the idea that there's a conspiracy among climatologists and Al Gore to trumpet warming in order to win more government grants for climate study is just farcical.
President Obama was in Denver Tueday to campaign for his jobs bill. Yesterday's local newspaper here in Colo Spgs editorialized that the bill is a boondoggle and there must not be any tax law changes, because, "when you give money to some people, you have to take it away from other people." (Not an exact quote, but gives the spirit of what was written.)
Well, first of all, this is an odd argument coming from anyone who believes in supply side economics, and the idea that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues. Either it's a zero sum economy or it isn't guys.
Second, money has been taken from people of modest means for the last ten years and redistributed upward to the Koch brothers and others like them. If it's to be redistributed any more, I'd like it to be redistributed to people like myself for a change.
Finally, the president's job bill differs from the bailouts of two years ago in that it's aimed at public works rather than the financial apparatus of the country. Driving along local roads, I'm more than convinced that there's work to be done, even if it's nothing more grandiose than filling potholes. By the way, the same paper that bemoans the president's bill splashed a story this week, enthusiastically recommending widening Interstate 25 through our town at a cost of many millions of dollars.
No wonder people are confused.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Integrity
I was thinking recently about my life as a park ranger, and recalled an episode from about 1976, when I was still rather green and had little experience, especially in the law enforcement function.
I was at a party and two more experienced rangers were talking. One said, "If I need to shade the truth a little to get some dirtbag off the streets (or out of the park) I'm willing to do it."
The second ranger said he had two problems with that. First, if you don't adhere to the truth any defense lawyer worth anything will make a monkey out of you on cross-examination. And second, he said, "When you put your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, you gotta tell the truth."
I agreed with the second ranger, for both reasons. Years later when I was a chief ranger, one of my best moments came when a clerk of magistrate's court approached me after a session and said, "Your rangers have the best reputation for honesty of any federal officers we see here."
I was gratified, naturally, but it worried me that other feds might be shading things to gain convictions.
And I'm relating this little story now just to say that honesty is the best policy and many of us learn that from bitter experience.
I was at a party and two more experienced rangers were talking. One said, "If I need to shade the truth a little to get some dirtbag off the streets (or out of the park) I'm willing to do it."
The second ranger said he had two problems with that. First, if you don't adhere to the truth any defense lawyer worth anything will make a monkey out of you on cross-examination. And second, he said, "When you put your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, you gotta tell the truth."
I agreed with the second ranger, for both reasons. Years later when I was a chief ranger, one of my best moments came when a clerk of magistrate's court approached me after a session and said, "Your rangers have the best reputation for honesty of any federal officers we see here."
I was gratified, naturally, but it worried me that other feds might be shading things to gain convictions.
And I'm relating this little story now just to say that honesty is the best policy and many of us learn that from bitter experience.
Monday, September 19, 2011
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Egghead and Blockheads
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 17, 2011
WASHINGTON
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Related
Times Topic: Rick Perry
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Columnist: Rick Perry, Uber Texan (September 18, 2011)
Editorial: Governor Perry’s Vaccine Tribulations(September 18, 2011)
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
THERE are two American archetypes that were sometimes played against each other in old Westerns.
The egghead Eastern lawyer who lacks the skills or stomach for a gunfight is contrasted with the tough Western rancher and ace shot who has no patience for book learnin’.
The duality of America’s creation story was vividly illustrated in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” the 1962 John Ford Western.
Jimmy Stewart is the young attorney who comes West to Shinbone and ends up as a U.S. senator after gaining fame for killing the sadistic outlaw Liberty Valance, played by Lee Marvin. John Wayne is the rancher, a fast-draw Cyrano who hides behind a building and actually shoots Marvin because he knows Stewart is hopeless in a duel. He does it even though they’re in love with the same waitress, who chooses the lawyer because he teaches her to read.
A lifetime later, on the verge of becoming a vice presidential candidate, Stewart confesses the truth to a Shinbone newspaperman, who refuses to print it. “When the legend becomes fact,” the editor says, “print the legend.”
At the cusp of the 2012 race, we have a classic cultural collision between a skinny Eastern egghead lawyer who’s inept in Washington gunfights and a pistol-totin’, lethal-injectin’, square-shouldered cowboy who has no patience for book learnin’.
Rick Perry, from the West Texas town of Paint Creek, is no John Wayne, even though he has a ton of executions notched on his belt. But he wears a pair of cowboy boots with the legend “Liberty” stitched on one. (As in freedom, not Valance.) He plays up the effete-versus-mesquite stereotypes in his second-grade textbook of a manifesto, “Fed Up!”
Trashing Massachusetts, he writes: “They passed state-run health care, they have sanctioned gay marriage, and they elected Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank repeatedly — even after actually knowing about them and what they believe! Texans, on the other hand, elect folks like me. You know the type, the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”
At a recent campaign event in South Carolina, Perry grinned, “I’m actually for gun control — use both hands.”
Traveling to Lynchburg, Va., to speak to students at Liberty University (as in Falwell, not Valance), Perry made light of his bad grades at Texas A&M.
Studying to be a veterinarian, he stumbled on chemistry and made a D one semester and an F in another. “Four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me,” said Perry, who went on to join the Air Force.
“His other D’s,” Richard Oppel wrote in The Times, “included courses in the principles of economics, Shakespeare, ‘Feeds & Feeding,’ veterinary anatomy and what appears to be a course called ‘Meats.’ ”
He even got a C in gym.
Perry conceded that he “struggled” with college, and told the 13,000 young people in Lynchburg that in high school, he had graduated “in the top 10 of my graduating class — of 13.”
It’s enough to make you long for W.’s Gentleman’s C’s. At least he was a mediocre student at Yale. Even Newt Gingrich’s pseudo-intellectualism is a relief at this point.
Our education system is going to hell. Average SAT scores are falling, and America is slipping down the list of nations for college completion. And Rick Perry stands up with a smirk to talk to students about how you can get C’s, D’s and F’s and still run for president.
The Texas governor did help his former chief of staff who went to lobby for a pharmaceutical company that donated to Perry, so he at least knows the arithmetic of back scratching.
Perry told the students, “God uses broken people to reach a broken world.” What does that even mean?
The Republicans are now the “How great is it to be stupid?” party. In perpetrating the idea that there’s no intellectual requirement for the office of the presidency, the right wing of the party offers a Farrelly Brothers “Dumb and Dumber” primary in which evolution is avant-garde.
Having grown up with a crush on William F. Buckley Jr. for his sesquipedalian facility, it’s hard for me to watch the right wing of the G.O.P. revel in anti-intellectualism and anti-science cant.
Sarah Palin, who got outraged at a “gotcha” question about what newspapers and magazines she read, is the mother of stupid conservatism. Another “Don’t Know Much About History” Tea Party heroine, Michele Bachmann, seems rather proud of not knowing anything, simply repeating nutty, inflammatory medical claims that somebody in the crowd tells her.
So we’re choosing between the overintellectualized professor and blockheads boasting about their vacuity?
The occupational hazard of democracy is know-nothing voters. It shouldn’t be know-nothing candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)