And the freakout was not far behind. A former spokesman for the Michigan GOP suggested armed rebellion was the answer. I always love that. Conservatives seem to think they are somehow so patriotic that they can advocate shooting people? One Republican referred to the SCOTUS ruling as 9-11, because, you know, it is hard to tell the difference between a devastating terrorist attack and a court ruling that says people can have access to healthcare.
And that is the part that just blows me away. I hear conservatives everywhere talk about losing their freedoms, but I don't know what freedoms those are. It is harder to smoke in public, that is for sure, but I don't know that Obama or the Feds are pushing that. It is harder to scald yourself in the shower. You can't purchase a completely unsafe car as easily as you could before.
Everyone I hear bitching about the mandate already has healthcare and would not, for a minute, think seriously about not having insurance. Yet telling them they have to have it--for all the reasons that it actually works--is some kind of tyranny? The government has the ability to mine your data, tap your phones, and find out what books you check out--to say nothing of my key test case--torture people--yet somehow telling people to get healthcare is a start to Nazi Germany.
I honestly don't get it. And it isn't as if Republicans are serious about keeping government out of your life--at least if you are a woman. They support a lot of healthcare mandates. They don't have the least bit of a problem forcing a woman to undergo all sorts of medical intrusions if she has reproductive issues. They can deny her access to emergency contraception, can actually force her to have a transvaginal probe, or they can simply force her to give birth regardless of the situation.
I hate to break it to Republicans, but those stances are contrary to the idea of freedom.
Ultimately, where I no longer respect that side of the aisle is their complete willingness to be duped into stupid outrage. The Mandate came out of a conservative think tank, and until Freedom Works and others decided it was just what Hitler would do, was widely accepted in conservative circles. As we talked about here, if you poll people on the basics of the ACA, even Republicans support most of them--including the ban on preexisting conditions and lifetime cap--both of which are completely impossible without the mandate.
But my Republican friends will shout about freedom, and then go out to vote for someone who wants to restore our torture regime, and take away our healthcare. If any of that makes sense to you, then you must be a Tea Partier.
June 30, 2012
June 27, 2012
The least of these?
Old news, but the attack on the poor and the needy continues. In Pennsylvania, the Republican governor is looking to reduce assistance to the needy, "including cutting support for the mentally ill." The mentally ill aren't the only ones, of course. Anyone at the bottom is under attack to take care of themselves. Or not.
In Kansas, Brownback just signed a tax law that removes income tax for businesses, professional income, or anything that can be sheltered in a trust or partnership. The elderly, the working class, and anyone who doesn't make enough money to shelter their money will still pay income taxes. For reduced services that they need more, of course.
All this, while my Christian conservative friends pray for the ACA to be overturned and for Obama to lose his reelection bid. Obviously, for many of you here, that doesn't surprise or shock you, because as Leighton just said so eloquently, "lies for Jesus are just simply lies." I still, stupidly want to believe that my conservative Christian friends--the ones who speak glowingly of their personal relationship with someone who healed the sick and hung out with whores and lepers--would actually want policies that look after the "least of these."
But for many of them, Obama's race undoubtedly taps something they can't openly address. For others, deep down, they just don't like poor people, and assume that many of those who are homeless or ill or poor are just lazy and immoral. I wish I could say I understood that, but there is a cruelty there that is just scary. But I absolutely don't understand their sycophantic kneeling at the altar of the wealthy and powerful.
Read this from the late departed Elizabeth Edwards. In this 2008 essay, she describes meeting a single mother (apparently), seemingly employed, grabbing Edwards at a talk and telling her that she was terrified by the lump in her breast, but could not get it checked because she had no insurance.
There is nothing Christian about that response.
In Kansas, Brownback just signed a tax law that removes income tax for businesses, professional income, or anything that can be sheltered in a trust or partnership. The elderly, the working class, and anyone who doesn't make enough money to shelter their money will still pay income taxes. For reduced services that they need more, of course.
All this, while my Christian conservative friends pray for the ACA to be overturned and for Obama to lose his reelection bid. Obviously, for many of you here, that doesn't surprise or shock you, because as Leighton just said so eloquently, "lies for Jesus are just simply lies." I still, stupidly want to believe that my conservative Christian friends--the ones who speak glowingly of their personal relationship with someone who healed the sick and hung out with whores and lepers--would actually want policies that look after the "least of these."
But for many of them, Obama's race undoubtedly taps something they can't openly address. For others, deep down, they just don't like poor people, and assume that many of those who are homeless or ill or poor are just lazy and immoral. I wish I could say I understood that, but there is a cruelty there that is just scary. But I absolutely don't understand their sycophantic kneeling at the altar of the wealthy and powerful.
Read this from the late departed Elizabeth Edwards. In this 2008 essay, she describes meeting a single mother (apparently), seemingly employed, grabbing Edwards at a talk and telling her that she was terrified by the lump in her breast, but could not get it checked because she had no insurance.
In the landscape of the health-care debate, two very different paths lie in front of us. Which one we choose will speak volumes about who we are as a nation and what values we hold dear. Our choice will determine what we say to women like Sheila—whether we say, “We are with you. Your challenge is our challenge too, and we will help you face it,” or simply shrug and say, “Sorry, you’re on your own.” That’s the moral choice we face today and which path we walk down is up to us.My Christian friends don't want to admit it, but the people who pray to a man who healed women and lepers, are saying to people like Sheila, "you are on your own."
There is nothing Christian about that response.
June 26, 2012
Anti-intellectualism, evangelicals and the American mind
Two posts the other day caught my eye. The first was this from Fred Clark on how professors in evangelical schools often have to lie to their students. I remember as a teen a discussion about seminary. One person noted that those who went to seminary expecting to get their beliefs rubber-stamped were in for a big surprise. But I then watched as conservatives within the SBC went to rather extreme efforts to make sure that was no longer true. And this is what Fred observes. Intellectual inquiry has been banished, because for conservatives, intellectual inquiry and curiosity are bad things.
This, along with the emphasis on female submission started my exodus from the church.
But it isn't just the church that struggles with anti-intellectualism. Americans, as Richard Hofstadter noted, have always struggled with this distrust of the academy and the intellectual life. But in recent years, that has taken a different tack toward seeing education as just another market-driven problem. I see it all the time with college students who see their tuition as payment for a degree, or, in my class, payment for a grade. Not access to learning. Just that letter grade and the ultimate degree.
But they aren't alone. Conservatives everywhere have decided that education should be run as a part of a free market economy. Cheaper to just use people like me to educate, and push everything to the online environment or for-profit education. Chris Hayes has a really good discussion here.
I would have liked to see more discussion on the role the university itself has played here, but that will come. I would also like to see more discussion of the role that education has played in research and social mobility. But conservatives don't seem to value either.
This, along with the emphasis on female submission started my exodus from the church.
But it isn't just the church that struggles with anti-intellectualism. Americans, as Richard Hofstadter noted, have always struggled with this distrust of the academy and the intellectual life. But in recent years, that has taken a different tack toward seeing education as just another market-driven problem. I see it all the time with college students who see their tuition as payment for a degree, or, in my class, payment for a grade. Not access to learning. Just that letter grade and the ultimate degree.
But they aren't alone. Conservatives everywhere have decided that education should be run as a part of a free market economy. Cheaper to just use people like me to educate, and push everything to the online environment or for-profit education. Chris Hayes has a really good discussion here.
I would have liked to see more discussion on the role the university itself has played here, but that will come. I would also like to see more discussion of the role that education has played in research and social mobility. But conservatives don't seem to value either.
Man walks up to Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates
Peter asks, "Why should you enter the gates of heaven?"
Man: "I fought for lower taxes and opposed healthcare for the poor."
Peter: "Sigh"
Man: "I fought for lower taxes and opposed healthcare for the poor."
Peter: "Sigh"
June 14, 2012
June 13, 2012
The Good Samaritan
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A Moor was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was picked up by soldiers and took to a room. There they stripped him of his clothes, drown him in water until he was almost dead, and left him naked in a very cold room. His screams filled the air, but those who heard looked the other way. 31 When news of this reached the village, the local leader assured the people that he, a very religious man, had done nothing wrong, and the Moor was very dangerous. 32 The local priests agreed, and commended the leader for his righteousness. Local church members also shrugged and told each other the Moor was a dangerous man who asked for violence. 33 But When one of the religious leaders objected, and asked if we were not to "love our neighbor," the leaders condemned him as valuing the life of the enemy more than the villagers. 34 After many more awful days, the Moor died in his cold cell and was buried without ceremony. The village leader, who often prayed in public, retired from public life without punishment, though he often boasted of protecting the village from the Moor. 35 The religious people of the village nodded in agreement, and told future leaders to do likewise.
36 “Which of these do you think was a neighbor to the Moor?”*
*Well, it might not have gone exactly that way. You can read the real story here.
June 10, 2012
The betrayal of the faith
As usual, Leighton has an insight that needs some thought:
I think that in practice, faith among laypeople in the U.S. (in the sense of non-ordained, not uneducated) seems to be rarely about belief in an actual deity, so much as a belief in the power of a group or organization that preaches love and charity to breathe life into its vision. It's a faith that the church can actually make things better for people - make sure they are safe and fed, give them meaning in the midst of the crushing dullness of the present, and hope for a better future for them and their children.
Seeing so many churches and prominent people of faith going out of their way to comfort the comfortable and oppress the afflicted is a terrible betrayal for people who try to have faith in the message of hope ostensibly championed by those who are working diligently to crush that hope. This doesn't have any direct connection to God (except that for whatever reason, God is not preserving his/her message). But that betrayal of trust by people can make it harder to trust people in general. This can be a deeper and more grievous wound than losing faith in someone who was never really there to begin with.
June 6, 2012
Struggling
Last night's outcome in Wisconsin is troubling for many reasons. From what I read, Walker used tremendous amounts of anonymous money to spread complete disinformation. In this world, disinformation works, because so many people are low information voters. I know several people who vote based on completely half-assed information.
These Republican voters can't identify Grover Norquist, may not have heard of the Supreme Court case Citizens United, and probably aren't aware of the Koch brothers. I have run into several who had no idea that Norquist dominates the Republican party tax policy.
None of that stops them from voting Republican, mind you. Just as learning about torture or cuts for the disabled didn't stop them. And the fact that so many of them are Christians just makes it all the worse. I know that Leighton is correct in why these people vote the way they do--I get that in my head.
But the kid who grew up going to vacation bible school and revival meetings is struggling with the fact that my Christian friends don't actually care about others outside their view. Oh sure, all of them do some for the poor. I get that too. But at the same time, they vote for policies that harm others--and don't care. Their "relationship" with God is so powerful in their life that they can't manage to give a flying fuck about some poor disabled person who just lost some assistance. Just as they didn't care when our government tortured people to death in their name. Their God either communicates so badly that they can't hear--OR he doesn't mind torture and poverty either.
One Christian friend told me that Jesus said "the poor will always be with us," so we should just do what we can, cut government programs, and trust that "God is in control."
Jesus.
Are they trying to recruit for atheism? Because that is unbelievable. But on every issue--women's health and pay equity; poverty; the environment; torture and war; tax policy, etc. these good Christians in prayer and "quiet time" can't seem to care.
I am trying to believe. But you guys are not helping.
These Republican voters can't identify Grover Norquist, may not have heard of the Supreme Court case Citizens United, and probably aren't aware of the Koch brothers. I have run into several who had no idea that Norquist dominates the Republican party tax policy.
None of that stops them from voting Republican, mind you. Just as learning about torture or cuts for the disabled didn't stop them. And the fact that so many of them are Christians just makes it all the worse. I know that Leighton is correct in why these people vote the way they do--I get that in my head.
But the kid who grew up going to vacation bible school and revival meetings is struggling with the fact that my Christian friends don't actually care about others outside their view. Oh sure, all of them do some for the poor. I get that too. But at the same time, they vote for policies that harm others--and don't care. Their "relationship" with God is so powerful in their life that they can't manage to give a flying fuck about some poor disabled person who just lost some assistance. Just as they didn't care when our government tortured people to death in their name. Their God either communicates so badly that they can't hear--OR he doesn't mind torture and poverty either.
One Christian friend told me that Jesus said "the poor will always be with us," so we should just do what we can, cut government programs, and trust that "God is in control."
Jesus.
Are they trying to recruit for atheism? Because that is unbelievable. But on every issue--women's health and pay equity; poverty; the environment; torture and war; tax policy, etc. these good Christians in prayer and "quiet time" can't seem to care.
I am trying to believe. But you guys are not helping.
June 5, 2012
When churches become more political than, well anything else
The Story of a Centrist is a great post (actually book excerpt) from Jonathan Merritt about his experience trying to address environmentalism from a Christian point of view. You can read it, but it won't surprise you that at first he found great support from Southern Baptist circles. But then the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission) found out and used what can be called "strong arm" tactics to try to silence the effort.
Some of this is the naiveté of someone who wanted to believe that churches were somehow different than other institutions. I was certainly guilty of that. I wanted to believe that because people used a language of faith that they operated from a different set of rules. And to be fair, some groups do--both in and outside the church.
But the other part of this is the history of institutions. At some point, the institution becomes more about protecting and defending the structure than anything approaching the ideas or goals they started with. The Southern Baptists may have started as a group dedicated to religious liberty and the "autonomy of the local church," but they have become a de facto arm of the Republican party. The same can be said of the Catholic church who are more about defending the structure than protecting kids, or punishing priests, or actually providing care for women.
Some of this is the naiveté of someone who wanted to believe that churches were somehow different than other institutions. I was certainly guilty of that. I wanted to believe that because people used a language of faith that they operated from a different set of rules. And to be fair, some groups do--both in and outside the church.
But the other part of this is the history of institutions. At some point, the institution becomes more about protecting and defending the structure than anything approaching the ideas or goals they started with. The Southern Baptists may have started as a group dedicated to religious liberty and the "autonomy of the local church," but they have become a de facto arm of the Republican party. The same can be said of the Catholic church who are more about defending the structure than protecting kids, or punishing priests, or actually providing care for women.
June 3, 2012
You'll get my 40 oz. soda when you pry it from my cold, chubby fingers
So this last week, Bloomberg called for limiting soft drink sizes to 16 oz. Not limiting people to 16 oz. of soda, by the way, but limiting the cup size.
You would have thought he called for the end of freedom. I saw a lot of conservatives deriding this as the "nanny state" and an imposition on individual freedom.
Personally, I would advocate taxing soda and other foods that use high fructose corn syrup, but the Bloomberg model hopes that limiting cup size will serve as a subconscious trigger that the consumer has had enough. I don't know. High fructose corn syrup is different than other sugars, evidently, and may make people fatter than other sugars or fats. The argument here is that these sugary drinks contribute to obesity, which costs our economy billions in healthcare costs, lost productivity, etc. We all pay for those costs.
There are two real problems for me here. First, is the assumption that this limit is somehow the first government intrusion into the fast food or junk food arena--or that it is completely unprecedented. Yet corn is heavily subsidized (as is sugar) so this area is hardly some paragon of the free market. Second, this is hardly new. We have always made choices about things that we deem to be dangerous. We are increasingly limiting areas where one can smoke, and charge taxes on alcohol and tobacco. We force passengers now to wear seat belts (because the link between seat belts and saved lives is clear, btw), and impose all sorts of limits on various drugs.
But my first complaint with this is about the nature of conservative governing. Their philosophy, as I am told, is that they believe in smaller government and more individual freedom. Yet, the list of government intrusions they tolerate is rather stunning. These same conservatives had no problem with the Patriot act allowing the government to invade their privacy without a warrant. These same conservatives shrugged when their government tortured people. These same conservatives seem to have little problem with a state that executes people even when we know that the death penalty is rife with class and racial bias. These conservatives cheer a government that invades a woman's womb and reproductive system. Or cheer a government that allows doctors to lie to women, or in this case, denies a rape victim access to emergency contraception.
Access to healthcare and reducing soda intake offends my conservative friends. Torture and shaming a raped woman? Not so much.
Is it too much to ask for some philosophical consistency?
You would have thought he called for the end of freedom. I saw a lot of conservatives deriding this as the "nanny state" and an imposition on individual freedom.
Personally, I would advocate taxing soda and other foods that use high fructose corn syrup, but the Bloomberg model hopes that limiting cup size will serve as a subconscious trigger that the consumer has had enough. I don't know. High fructose corn syrup is different than other sugars, evidently, and may make people fatter than other sugars or fats. The argument here is that these sugary drinks contribute to obesity, which costs our economy billions in healthcare costs, lost productivity, etc. We all pay for those costs.
There are two real problems for me here. First, is the assumption that this limit is somehow the first government intrusion into the fast food or junk food arena--or that it is completely unprecedented. Yet corn is heavily subsidized (as is sugar) so this area is hardly some paragon of the free market. Second, this is hardly new. We have always made choices about things that we deem to be dangerous. We are increasingly limiting areas where one can smoke, and charge taxes on alcohol and tobacco. We force passengers now to wear seat belts (because the link between seat belts and saved lives is clear, btw), and impose all sorts of limits on various drugs.
But my first complaint with this is about the nature of conservative governing. Their philosophy, as I am told, is that they believe in smaller government and more individual freedom. Yet, the list of government intrusions they tolerate is rather stunning. These same conservatives had no problem with the Patriot act allowing the government to invade their privacy without a warrant. These same conservatives shrugged when their government tortured people. These same conservatives seem to have little problem with a state that executes people even when we know that the death penalty is rife with class and racial bias. These conservatives cheer a government that invades a woman's womb and reproductive system. Or cheer a government that allows doctors to lie to women, or in this case, denies a rape victim access to emergency contraception.
Access to healthcare and reducing soda intake offends my conservative friends. Torture and shaming a raped woman? Not so much.
Is it too much to ask for some philosophical consistency?
May 31, 2012
Wrong place, wrong time.
Heard a fascinating interview on the BBC with a historian studying the Adolf Eichmann trial. Turns out this is the 50th anniversary of his trial and execution. The point that caught me was the observation that until this trial, most Israelis saw the Holocaust victims as "ghetto" Jews who were too weak to stand up to the Germans. The Israelis had just defeated several Arab nations and thought of themselves as strong and self-reliant. Hearing the testimony of the survivors at Eichmann's trial made them realize there was no difference. The Holocaust victims were just at the wrong place in the wrong time.
The story before this was about the Sudan and people trying to survive. Pulling them both together I was struck by the continuity of fortune. I was fortunate in so many ways. I was born in a peaceful part of the world, far from pogroms and death squads. My parents provided more food than we could eat. I didn't experience oxygen deprivation at an inopportune time. I survived childhood with my wits intact, and after many childhood diseases had been virtually eradicated. I had access to education and entertainment.
But in a different country; in a different family; in a different state of health--all the difference in the world. A difference we take for granted in this country. And this is not an American Exceptionalism talk. I am stunned that Republicans have made that a requirement for patriotism. I understood that as hubris and blind following. American Exceptionalism is the opposite of humility, and for the life of me, I have no clue why conservatives don't see that.
If I were born south of the border, or in the wrong country in Africa, or a Jew in 1930s Germany--everything would be different. If I were a minority and poor in this country, everything would be different. I would be more likely to end up in prison, or on death row.
Our playing field isn't level--either in this country, and certainly in the world. Conservatives would do well to acknowledge that.
I was born in the right place at the right time. I was born to parents who love me.
I was blessed.
That wasn't due to my effort.
The story before this was about the Sudan and people trying to survive. Pulling them both together I was struck by the continuity of fortune. I was fortunate in so many ways. I was born in a peaceful part of the world, far from pogroms and death squads. My parents provided more food than we could eat. I didn't experience oxygen deprivation at an inopportune time. I survived childhood with my wits intact, and after many childhood diseases had been virtually eradicated. I had access to education and entertainment.
But in a different country; in a different family; in a different state of health--all the difference in the world. A difference we take for granted in this country. And this is not an American Exceptionalism talk. I am stunned that Republicans have made that a requirement for patriotism. I understood that as hubris and blind following. American Exceptionalism is the opposite of humility, and for the life of me, I have no clue why conservatives don't see that.
If I were born south of the border, or in the wrong country in Africa, or a Jew in 1930s Germany--everything would be different. If I were a minority and poor in this country, everything would be different. I would be more likely to end up in prison, or on death row.
Our playing field isn't level--either in this country, and certainly in the world. Conservatives would do well to acknowledge that.
I was born in the right place at the right time. I was born to parents who love me.
I was blessed.
That wasn't due to my effort.
May 25, 2012
Profiting from the poor
I am a capitalist. I like the profit margin and believe that competition and greed produce some very good things. That search for profit has given us home improvements, Ipods, great strides in medical technology, and even safer and more efficient cars.
But there are aspects of capitalism that bother me. Capitalism, after all, cares not if the worker is 12 or the byproduct poisons the local river. But there is a new trend in capitalism of profiting from the poor. This occurs in tax policy, in wages, and especially in lending practices.
I still remember when I first discovered "signature loans." My mother scowled and said very plainly, "those are nothing more than usury." Now, the payday loan people probably scoff at the signature loans.
Capitalism makes great cars, but there are some areas that are not made better by the free market's drive for profit. Prisons, poor people, and I would argue, education are not improved by transforming them into revenue streams.
We can do better. But since we have decided that the free market is a divinely inspired mechanism, it is doubtful we will.
But there are aspects of capitalism that bother me. Capitalism, after all, cares not if the worker is 12 or the byproduct poisons the local river. But there is a new trend in capitalism of profiting from the poor. This occurs in tax policy, in wages, and especially in lending practices.
I still remember when I first discovered "signature loans." My mother scowled and said very plainly, "those are nothing more than usury." Now, the payday loan people probably scoff at the signature loans.
Capitalism makes great cars, but there are some areas that are not made better by the free market's drive for profit. Prisons, poor people, and I would argue, education are not improved by transforming them into revenue streams.
We can do better. But since we have decided that the free market is a divinely inspired mechanism, it is doubtful we will.
May 15, 2012
May 11, 2012
On gay marriage
This has been an interesting week, that is for sure. Watching the train wreck in North Carolina was painful. But then, the next day, President Obama became the first sitting President to affirm gay marriage. The response has been interesting. Conservatives said that Obama had declared war on traditional marriage, and some on both sides accused the President of acting out of pure political expediency.
That may be true. I would be naive to suggest that the Obama camp didn't have extensive meetings on this subject. But I am also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt--that the story he told of his "evolution" is true. Because that is my journey too.
I don't think I knew any openly gay people until my 30s. SOF and I have been trying to recount the first time we met someone out of the closet. Certainly in my high school there were people we suspected as gay, but none were open. Like Fallows, I wonder how many times I used anti-gay slurs around gay people without knowing? I hope I didn't.
In that context, gays were always illicit and perverse. And, of course, it ran right into the complex sexual awakening of teen years, so any challenge to that was always difficult. But, as Obama notes, times have changed. I have had several gay colleagues, and we have neighbors who have been together longer than our nearly 24 years. It becomes increasingly hard to dismiss that kind of relationship.
Obama noted that his daughters had friends with same-sex parents, and it was inconceivable to Sasha and Malia that those parents were somehow less than their own. That is the generational gap that so many evangelicals and conservatives don't see. The younger kids are around openly gay people--in their family or circle of friends. They see them as humans, not as deviants. And, as Rachel Held Evans notes, that is also true in conservative evangelical circles. Watching her social media feeds Tuesday evening, she saw the divide.
They won't win this war, I don't think. But the casualties will be many.
That may be true. I would be naive to suggest that the Obama camp didn't have extensive meetings on this subject. But I am also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt--that the story he told of his "evolution" is true. Because that is my journey too.
I don't think I knew any openly gay people until my 30s. SOF and I have been trying to recount the first time we met someone out of the closet. Certainly in my high school there were people we suspected as gay, but none were open. Like Fallows, I wonder how many times I used anti-gay slurs around gay people without knowing? I hope I didn't.
In that context, gays were always illicit and perverse. And, of course, it ran right into the complex sexual awakening of teen years, so any challenge to that was always difficult. But, as Obama notes, times have changed. I have had several gay colleagues, and we have neighbors who have been together longer than our nearly 24 years. It becomes increasingly hard to dismiss that kind of relationship.
Obama noted that his daughters had friends with same-sex parents, and it was inconceivable to Sasha and Malia that those parents were somehow less than their own. That is the generational gap that so many evangelicals and conservatives don't see. The younger kids are around openly gay people--in their family or circle of friends. They see them as humans, not as deviants. And, as Rachel Held Evans notes, that is also true in conservative evangelical circles. Watching her social media feeds Tuesday evening, she saw the divide.
Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning. Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: You’re losing usI don't think they can change, however. The entire conservative movement right now is consumed with trying to stop the country from changing into a world where white and straight privilege don't dominate.
They won't win this war, I don't think. But the casualties will be many.
May 3, 2012
More on the GOP as the problem
And I know that at least Steve wasn't impressed with this argument, but I certainly find it convincing. Sully notes some reactions. One of the key points is that this is not an issue of conservative v. liberal. I don't think what the Republican party is doing on foreign policy or domestic policy is really conservative.
To give two simple examples: the outrageous use of the filibuster in the Senate and the refusal to give an incoming president in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s a single vote on a stimulus package that was one third tax cuts.
The Self-Made Myth
As I posted at the beginning of this year, I was interested in studying the role that government plays in our lives. Obviously, that has fallen by the wayside--even with great assistance and information from people like Smitty--partly because I could not get a handle on the information.
Perhaps it has already been done. Reading this on the "myth of the self-made man" and think this might be a good start. I have several relatives who remind me of this story. They see themselves as self-made, are angered by taxation, and just want others to work harder. And they have worked hard--no doubt, but they aren't acknowledging the myriad ways that they have received help from others--because if they do, they will have to acknowledge the need to pass it forward.
Turns out this mythology is older than Horatio Algier. In The Americanization of Ben Franklin, Gordon Wood argues that, in part, being "americanized" was to be a self-made man who had come out of poverty. That was a new thing--coming from poverty was not a good thing before. Of course, as he notes, Franklin wasn't actually self-made either.
But that mythology continues. And it is a destructive mythology, unfortunately. Not by encouraging hard work and effort, but by removing that group and community assistance that we all need.
Perhaps it has already been done. Reading this on the "myth of the self-made man" and think this might be a good start. I have several relatives who remind me of this story. They see themselves as self-made, are angered by taxation, and just want others to work harder. And they have worked hard--no doubt, but they aren't acknowledging the myriad ways that they have received help from others--because if they do, they will have to acknowledge the need to pass it forward.
Turns out this mythology is older than Horatio Algier. In The Americanization of Ben Franklin, Gordon Wood argues that, in part, being "americanized" was to be a self-made man who had come out of poverty. That was a new thing--coming from poverty was not a good thing before. Of course, as he notes, Franklin wasn't actually self-made either.
But that mythology continues. And it is a destructive mythology, unfortunately. Not by encouraging hard work and effort, but by removing that group and community assistance that we all need.
April 30, 2012
Let's just say it: The Republicans are the Problem
Finally, someone says it: the Republicans are the problem, and avoids the normal media approach of blaming both sides.
I don't see that in the modern Republican party. The Democrats, while hardly perfect, worked with Bush when they could. Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to work with Obama, and reject even conservative proposals if they perceive that Obama might get credit. Nothing is more important to these people than defeating Obama--and that includes serving the American people.
What is more amazing to me, however, are those still voting for the GOP. At first, I wrote that off to the conservative lack of compassion toward the poor, and I still see that. Conversation after conversation suggests that my conservative colleagues see the poor primarily as lazy and possibly immoral. They have compassion, but think that most of the poor can, and should, work harder.
But this last round has revealed that it isn't just the very poor. The GOP reviles the working poor too--those who work multiple jobs, but still apply for SNAP benefits to eat. And let's take it just a little further. The GOP is after the safety net, and even the safety net that middle and upper middles look to in their retirement years. If the GOP gets their way, they will reduce Medicare to a voucher that increases only at inflation, leaving the elderly to negotiate for healthcare on the open market on a fixed income with less and less assistance. As I mentioned to one of my friends the other day, middle class Republicans are not only voting to make life harder on the poor, but voting to make their own retirement more painful. They are voting to cut their own throats, and thanking the GOP for the opportunity.
I hope they will wake up, but I am watching people vote out of emotion rather than logic--and emotion is much easier to manipulate. And the GOP can manipulate emotional hatred of Obama (or whoever we throw up there, let's be honest) and distract their voters from the attack on their own interest.
Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.It is always dangerous to wax nostalgic about the past. And there is no doubt that we have some heavy handed partisans in our past. But my memory and reading suggests that we always had a pretty good mass of people who, while not motivated by altruism, had at least a goal of good governance.
I don't see that in the modern Republican party. The Democrats, while hardly perfect, worked with Bush when they could. Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to work with Obama, and reject even conservative proposals if they perceive that Obama might get credit. Nothing is more important to these people than defeating Obama--and that includes serving the American people.
What is more amazing to me, however, are those still voting for the GOP. At first, I wrote that off to the conservative lack of compassion toward the poor, and I still see that. Conversation after conversation suggests that my conservative colleagues see the poor primarily as lazy and possibly immoral. They have compassion, but think that most of the poor can, and should, work harder.
But this last round has revealed that it isn't just the very poor. The GOP reviles the working poor too--those who work multiple jobs, but still apply for SNAP benefits to eat. And let's take it just a little further. The GOP is after the safety net, and even the safety net that middle and upper middles look to in their retirement years. If the GOP gets their way, they will reduce Medicare to a voucher that increases only at inflation, leaving the elderly to negotiate for healthcare on the open market on a fixed income with less and less assistance. As I mentioned to one of my friends the other day, middle class Republicans are not only voting to make life harder on the poor, but voting to make their own retirement more painful. They are voting to cut their own throats, and thanking the GOP for the opportunity.
I hope they will wake up, but I am watching people vote out of emotion rather than logic--and emotion is much easier to manipulate. And the GOP can manipulate emotional hatred of Obama (or whoever we throw up there, let's be honest) and distract their voters from the attack on their own interest.
April 24, 2012
Lest we forget, Christian President George Bush tortured early, often, and indiscriminately
Haven't talked about torture since the last time a Republican defended it--and that would be just a few months back. The leadership of the party thinks that torture is acceptable and even moral. And why should they not? It polls well among their base, as we have also discussed.
But a reminder of what these people did in our name:
Bush ordered the torture early in the war, and did so over the objections of moral people all along the way. To do so, they found lawyers to simply write briefs saying the torture was legal.
Need I remind you these are the same people most likely to quote from the Bible as they run for office? Most likely to talk about their "personal relationship" with Jesus as they authorize or defend torture? Most likely to talk about "moral values" and their decline as they order some innocent person shackled by wrist and ankle to a D-ring in the middle of the floor and then induce hypothermia.
The Republican party is the party of torture. They love it. They want to do more of it.
But a reminder of what these people did in our name:
Bush ordered the torture early in the war, and did so over the objections of moral people all along the way. To do so, they found lawyers to simply write briefs saying the torture was legal.
You get that? They didn't just torture Khalid Sheik Muhammed, they tortured innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They tortured people who had a tenuous connection to torture, and they did it when there was no imminent threat. The sadists we elected in 2000 and 2004 overrode the torturers in two cases and ordered more pain and more abuse.Then they tortured. They tortured men at military bases and detention centers in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Guantánamo, and in U.S. Navy bases on American soil; they tortured men in secret CIA prisons set up across the globe specifically to terrorize and torture prisoners; they sent many more to countries with notoriously abusive regimes and asked them to do the torturing. At least twice, after the torturers themselves concluded there was no point to further abuse, Washington ordered that the prisoners be tortured some more.They tortured innocent people. They tortured people who may have been guilty of terrorism-related crimes, but they ruined any chance of prosecuting them because of the torture. They tortured people when the torture had nothing to do with imminent threats: They tortured based on bad information they had extracted from others through torture; they tortured to hide their mistakes and to get confessions; they tortured sometimes just to break people, pure and simple.
Need I remind you these are the same people most likely to quote from the Bible as they run for office? Most likely to talk about their "personal relationship" with Jesus as they authorize or defend torture? Most likely to talk about "moral values" and their decline as they order some innocent person shackled by wrist and ankle to a D-ring in the middle of the floor and then induce hypothermia.
The Republican party is the party of torture. They love it. They want to do more of it.
April 19, 2012
capitalism, morality, and evangelical tribalism
It has been an interesting few weeks. We had some great guests stay with us the last few weekends, and then this most recent Friday had to retreat to our shelter as a tornado came within a half mile of our humble home. We were lucky, but one of our good friends had damage to her home and fence. Luckily, she and her family are safe, but it was one of those afternoons that will get your attention.
I have had an on-again, off-again conversation with some evangelical conservative friends of late. One of them works in a student ministry, and the other used to be a pastor--though that very fact both scares me and makes me very glad that he is no longer in that position.
Anyway, the conversation has been predictable in many ways. Both tend to recycle right wing talking points, and many times, I think, without even knowing. Both are convinced that government programs are inherently inefficient, and that a good many people who receive government assistance should not. Both of those viewpoints, I think, reflect this idea of "tribalism" where they see things purely through a lens of "with us" or "against us." Conservatives have been very effective at using that belief, I think, in convincing conservatives (and many liberals) that the media is biased against conservatives, or most recently, that any program that Obama supports is probably a bad idea. Fred Clark has written on this lately, and his last one suggests that this tribalism comes from a deep insecurity.
I am going to keep thinking about this idea.
But back to my conversation. Beyond the rather reflexive "government is bad" from both, I also see what I believe to be a false sense of what the unregulated market will produce. Both express a belief that people--as families, or as individuals, or as sexual beings--should act in a certain moral way. But at the same time, they suggest that an unregulated market is best. E.J. Dionne writes about this phenomenon, noting that most two-income couples are two-income by necessity. But those who want one parent at home with the kids seem to also want the market unregulated.
As I pointed out (we will see if they respond), the market doesn't care about morality. The market cares about profit, and if that profit comes by child labor, or selling crack or prostitution--that is fine. The market only cares if the worker dies if he or she can't be replaced. Same for the consumer.
And as I also pointed out to my friends, they tacitly accept this because they both want the government to ban certain things they don't like--drugs, abortion, and gay marriage. The free market, however, doesn't care about either of those.
Why the market is to be trusted in some areas, but not others puzzles me. But to be fair, so does the belief that somehow the market will magically address social or moral issues. Not sure why anyone would think it cares. Those things are only addressed when people make political and personal choices, and ask what are often hard questions.
I have had an on-again, off-again conversation with some evangelical conservative friends of late. One of them works in a student ministry, and the other used to be a pastor--though that very fact both scares me and makes me very glad that he is no longer in that position.
Anyway, the conversation has been predictable in many ways. Both tend to recycle right wing talking points, and many times, I think, without even knowing. Both are convinced that government programs are inherently inefficient, and that a good many people who receive government assistance should not. Both of those viewpoints, I think, reflect this idea of "tribalism" where they see things purely through a lens of "with us" or "against us." Conservatives have been very effective at using that belief, I think, in convincing conservatives (and many liberals) that the media is biased against conservatives, or most recently, that any program that Obama supports is probably a bad idea. Fred Clark has written on this lately, and his last one suggests that this tribalism comes from a deep insecurity.
I am going to keep thinking about this idea.
But back to my conversation. Beyond the rather reflexive "government is bad" from both, I also see what I believe to be a false sense of what the unregulated market will produce. Both express a belief that people--as families, or as individuals, or as sexual beings--should act in a certain moral way. But at the same time, they suggest that an unregulated market is best. E.J. Dionne writes about this phenomenon, noting that most two-income couples are two-income by necessity. But those who want one parent at home with the kids seem to also want the market unregulated.
As I pointed out (we will see if they respond), the market doesn't care about morality. The market cares about profit, and if that profit comes by child labor, or selling crack or prostitution--that is fine. The market only cares if the worker dies if he or she can't be replaced. Same for the consumer.
And as I also pointed out to my friends, they tacitly accept this because they both want the government to ban certain things they don't like--drugs, abortion, and gay marriage. The free market, however, doesn't care about either of those.
Why the market is to be trusted in some areas, but not others puzzles me. But to be fair, so does the belief that somehow the market will magically address social or moral issues. Not sure why anyone would think it cares. Those things are only addressed when people make political and personal choices, and ask what are often hard questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)