Blind Spot

Ahh, the holidays are here.  I have survived the little masked extortionists at the front door and celebrated our national gluttony day with family.  I prefer Thanksgiving.  Stuffed turkeys are the precursors to lit trees.  My Thanksgiving was good, surrounded by family and their legal and significant others.  There is always some tension in the air as young men must posture regarding football, hunting, and manliness in general, and the women must practice superficial niceties while waltzing around each other in the kitchen checking out each other’s recipes and marking their territory.  Children romp oblivious to the adult games, and infants wail seeking to draw their parents in.  I have grown too old to engage in these silly competitions and for the most part am amused watching in-laws and out-laws merging holiday traditions and two sets of expectations regarding dressing and giblet gravy.  But the food was wonderful!  After eating way too much I was content to adjourn to the couch, settle in as the matriarch to watch football, digest, and politely nap.

The nap was not meant to be.  A young man in his early 50’s sat near me and engaged an older gentleman in his mid 60’s regarding the state of things in America.  The young man owns his own business, has property in Texas and California, drives a Mercedes, and is very wealthy.  (He has never married and my wish for him is that he could commit to another in the ways he has committed to his political perspective.)  The older man is a petroleum engineer working for a large oil company, nearing retirement and also very wealthy, trophy wife, groomed and affluent children and grandchildren.  Fortunately I am not directly related to either.  They sat together to lambast all things Democrat, liberal and Obama.  My blood pressure rose as I listened to them share lies and shared perspectives.  Neither was interested in thinking about the issues.  They were much more interested in proclaiming truths a la Cruz and Limbaugh, in which there are few truths at all.  As they told each other the same lies they confirmed for each other that such lies must be true.  I opted to listen, eyes shut, to see if I could discern where they went astray.  Neither of these men is stupid.  After about 30 minutes of mutually reinforcing demagoguery I finally understood.  Yes, I was mad enough to kick the cat, but I had learned.

“When will they learn the government can’t do everything!” was the final shot across the bow, expressed by the younger and enthusiastically endorsed by the elder.  I was ready to vent my spleen when the conversation quickly morphed to football.  I took a deep breath and attempted to calm down.  As I did so, I realized I had just been granted an epiphany for which I remain ever so thankful.

The “they” in this final statement clearly refers to liberals, Democrats and the like.  I find it interesting that I have never seen nor read any liberal proposal for the government of the US to do “everything”.  That would be foolish.  The government is never likely to manufacture automobiles, develop a retail chain store, or open a fast food restaurant.  Virtually everything that is produced and sold in our market economy is done so by the private sector via mom and pop operations, partnerships and corporations.  In this I agree with my mislead friends, the government cannot do everything, nor should it, nor does anyone propose that it do so, even staunch liberals such as me.  So why do “we”, the onerous “they,” propose that the government do anything at all?

The market has been a wonderful structure for generating jobs and goods and innovations and wealth, etc., etc.  The market, however, is not moral.  It has a bottom line.  The goal in the market is to make money for the owners of the operation.  Clearly, if the owners are making less money they will cut their employees, so the goal is not employment.  Clearly if the owners can produce their product for less by manufacturing it oversees they will do so, so the goal is not patriotism.  Clearly if the owners can make more money by ignoring health risks they will do so, so the goal is not the health and well being of their employees.  The goal is making money for the owners.  If there is a demand for goods the market will provide a producer for that good, whether we perceive the good to be moral or not.  That is why we have large fire arms manufacturers and drug dealers, prostitutes and pornography.  There is a demand, the market produces the goods.  The market looks only at the profit from production, not the morality of the production.  The debacle of 1929 and 2008 were both symptomatic of an unfettered market run amuck. 

What should we as a nation do when we discover that the market is generating goods and services that we deem immoral or unhealthy?  The owners will not change production because to do so will reduce profits.  Profit is the raison d’être.  Upton Sinclair pointed out that the meat packing industry was making a lot of money but they were doing so with no regard for the health of the consumer.  Therefore, the government intervened.  That is why we have regulatory agencies to oversee the production of the food we eat.  It would be more profitable for the producers of food to not worry about E. coli and other diseases.  The same is true in restaurants.  The same is true with the water we drink.  The same is true with the drugs we take.  The same is true regarding the working conditions in our economy.  The same is true regarding the dependability of the goods we buy.  The same is true regarding the pollutants we release in our atmosphere.  On and on and on “we” have turned to the government to overlay a moral principle on the market economy when people are at risk.  Yes, that is government intervention in the market.  But it has occurred because as a people we have learned that the market is not moral.  Producers will not raise their costs and reduce their profit because it is moral.  When the government intervenes with a regulation it levels the playing field.  All producers must comply with the moral requirement, so no one producer suffers the cost of going broke acting on moral grounds.  To put it another way, the government does what it does because of the failure of the market economy to have a conscience. 

So, what about health care?  Insurance companies will clearly make more money if they can refuse to cover people based on pre-existing conditions.  Insurance companies will clearly make more money if they only insure those who can afford the insurance and those who are healthy.  As a nation, should we allow the insurance companies, and the employers who select them, to determine who can have insurance and who receives appropriate medical care?  The answer for years has been yes, we should allow the market to determine such things.  Now, we look at the data and the market solution has been deemed by many to be immoral. Only some people get insurance.  Those who can get insurance pay more if they are more at risk, or in other words, the more you need insurance the less likely you are to get it and if you do the more it will cost.  Is that what we as a nation want:  Big bucks for insurance companies while millions of Americans go without?  I find that immoral.  I wonder and worry about the folks who do not.  I suspect they all have insurance and/or own stock in insurance companies.  Again, the government has stepped in only because the market has failed to do the moral thing. 

The conservative flaw is the assumption that the market functions better than the government on moral issues.  It clearly does not; it clearly has not.  As I look at the ways in which the market selected employees prior to the legislative end of discrimination and the required equal employment opportunities, and the rise of women in the ranks of CEO’s it is clear the market would never address these issues.  As I look at the number of hungry and mistreated children it is clear that the market would never address these issues.  As I look at the health risks in manufacturing it is clear the market would never address the issue.  As I look at the wages paid and overtime pay it is clear the market would never address these issues.  In fact, the market has a stellar record of ignoring all things moral for the sake of making money.  To do otherwise would end the production in a competitive setting.  (You may care to look at my earlier posts regarding competition.)

I know a lot of liberals, few in Texas.  I do not know a single one who awakes each day seeking new ways to intervene in the market for the sake of government usurpation of production.  That is pure folly.  I do see and I do experience an ongoing exasperation with the private sector argument that what is good for business is good for the USA.  We have heard that before and it has not worked, or at least it has not worked for anyone other than the owners of production who have grown very rich.  I am a liberal because of my belief system, my sense of moral right and wrong.  I have a hard time understanding the conservative argument that allowing the market to freely operate is in our best interest.  We keep trying that and the market keeps spitting in our collective faces. 

The government only intervenes when the market fails.  Period.  It does not intervene for reasons other than the protection and promotion of the citizens of this country.  And when the market crashes, and major companies are on the verge of failing, they change their tune very quickly and turn to the government for support.  Amazing.

The conservative blind spot is an honest appraisal of the market, its strengths and weaknesses, and honest support when the government should intervene.  If they argue that it should not, not ever, then I see them as immoral, worshiping the profit god.  If they drink water from the tap, buy meat at the grocery store, take medications, drive on highways, fly on planes, talk on cell phones, drop letters in the mail, purchase new vehicles, take a deep breath of air, or ever have to go to the emergency room to be treated by doctors and nurses then they should celebrate and support the role of government as watchdog, protector, monitor and insurer of moral practices more than profit. 

Worse, if the conservatives take a purely government function like education and argue that it will be improved if it functioned more like the market then my knickers really are in a twist.  When it comes to the education of our children why would we abandon a moral motivation for an immoral one?

Why is that so hard to see?  Must be in a blind spot.

I close my eyes to nap, but never to injustice.

Awake or Asleep?

Have you noticed that:

People who oppose the Affordable Care Act already have health insurance?  Congress has health insurance paid for by tax dollars?

People who support the trickle down economic theory (or supply side, or whatever you want to call it) tend to either have money to trickle down but don’t want to, or have been convinced to support that theory by the rich?

When fundamental Christians embrace conservative political philosophy their mantra changes from “to whom much is given, much is required,” to “for whom much is earned, little shall be taxed”?

People who pray, “Thank you, Lord for our nation where we are free to worship and call you Lord,” also tend to support codifying their particular religious values in law?

The very churches who bask in the benefits of separation of church and state promote political perspectives from the pulpit and argue to implement their religious beliefs into law?

The national debt in January of 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, the debt he inherited from Bush, was $10.6 trillion and no one said a word?  Today it is $16.8 trillion and conservatives are screaming.

If every Latino, Black and poor person in Texas actually registered to vote and did so Texas would be a state dominated by the Democrat Party.  Republicans want to restrict voter rights?

The candidates that spend the most money in the campaign tend to get elected? Since the conservative Supreme Court now allows corporations to donate political money in unlimited amounts that the number of conservatives elected to office has increased?

The schools that consistently have high student outcomes on high stakes standardized tests are the schools with the wealthiest kids and the schools with the highest expenditures per kid?  Perhaps that is why conservatives want to take more money away from public schools, especially poor schools, rather than put more money into schools that need it the most.

The percentage of Americans who are millionaires is 1%.  The percentage of Congressmen who are millionaires is 50%?

Those who earn the most money set about structuring the rules to maintain their wealth?

Despite the evidence across the globe that the restriction of gun ownership reduces violence and death, and despite the continued occurrence of malcontents and disturbed folks using weapons to kill innocent people, we continue to argue that owning a gun is a right that should not be limited?

The number of poor children in Texas is escalating and the number of businesses moving here is escalating; and at the same time the state is cutting benefits to the poor kids and offering more benefits to businesses moving here?

If a patient dies it is not the doctor’s fault, if a tooth must be pulled it is not the dentist’s fault, if a lawyer loses a case it is not the lawyer’s fault, but if a kid fails to learn it is the teacher’s fault, or the principal’s fault, or the superintendent’s fault?

Many educators support conservative philosophies despite the fact they are government employees paid by tax dollars and hired to promote the learning of all kids?

It is not unique on this planet for a small ruling class to accumulate wealth and refuse to share it with others less fortunate?  It is unique on this planet to argue that all people are created equal and that all people have certain inalienable rights.

Those who proudly stand on the corner and promote the USA are the first to persecute liberals, atheists, homosexuals and anyone who thinks differently from them in direct contradiction to what makes this nation unique?

To identify these simple truths is risky in the current political climate in Texas?

If you haven’t noticed the above then go back to sleep. 

If you have noticed and live in Texas then I believe you are awake.  Hang in there.  I believe the day will come when our government cannot be bought and we will return to the basic principles that made us great.

And for that belief I am truly thankful. 

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Are You Syriaus?

I celebrate the coming fall, football, perhaps a cool front soon, perhaps a little more rain.  I no longer am thrilled by the real cold fronts of winter as the barometer and thermostat of my bones has grown so much more sensitive, but I love the first little cool nip in the air.  Kids are back in school and everyone is now mindful of the large yellow limousines that chug and beep and flash transporting precious cargo to and from brick and mortar learning centers. 

And, Voyager has left the solar system and is in interstellar space!  Oh Wow!  First human artifact to ever escape our solar system.  Fellow Trekkers will know how many Star Trek’s were devoted to “V-ger”, the notion that alien life picked up Voyager, modified it, and sent it out to do harm.  Gives me goose bumps that science fiction in the 1960′s becomes science fact in 2013, not that Voyager has been picked up by aliens.  Yet.

While all these wonderful events transpire a petty dictator in a mid-eastern state uses chemical warfare against the citizens of his own country, such citizens being foolish enough to rise up against him.  So sad, so tragic, so selfish, such pointless pain and loss of life.  I deeply grieve for those humans who live in circumstances where their greatest fear is from their own government.  I am appalled by the actions of this government.  I am fearful of the myriad forces at work within the rebellion to overthrow this government.  We all know that what is happening is obscene, immoral and wrong. 

But attack this nation?  Seek out the storage areas and manufacturing sites of chemical weapons and send US forces via air to strike them?  Inside a sovereign nation currently ripped by civil war?  How could we ever consider such a thing?  Do we as a nation absolutely refuse to learn from past mistakes?  Are we so committed to notions of self that we will repeat over and over and over again the mistakes of the past that have all led to disaster in the belief that we must intervene in nations where events are not to our liking or aligned with our business interests or moral code?  How many Koreas, Viet Nams, Iraqs, and Afganistans must we endure to learn this painful lesson?  Evidently a few more.

Attacking Syria should absolutely, totally be off the table.  Attacking Syria is more than foolhardy; it is a demonstration of our own sense of self-righteousness that the rest of the world despises.  If we are to police the world then we must enforce laws the world accepts, not our own.  Such an attack cannot end well and even if totally successful will win the animosity of many more nations and people. 

I am so disappointed in our President.  I have supported him.  I yearned for the hope he brought to the office.  I applauded his health care reform.  I have been frustrated by the intransigence of the opposition who have blocked all his economic reform efforts while blaming him for lack of economic recovery.  And yet I have been appalled by his stance on educational reform.  He has sipped the Kool Aide of the reformers and left those of us who truly support public schools with nowhere to turn when both Democrats and Republicans advocate the same drivel. 

Perhaps the Russian solution will work and the risk of chemical weapons used on a civilian population by their own government will end.  We know more civilians have died there by conventional bullets than chemical weapons so why are we now so upset?  Shall we demand that the governmental forces loyal to the dictator disarm as well?  I think not.  The NRA would move in force to stop on the grounds that we have the right to bear arms, so should the government of Syria.  I am sure they celebrate providing arms to the rebels.

We have watched the death of millions in outright genocidal efforts elsewhere and have done nothing.  We know many nations seriously violate our sense of human rights and liberties and have done nothing.  Why now, why there, why this issue?  If I did not know better I would think Bush were back in office.

 
So I say to President Obama, find another way to enforce our will on the world.  Do not use violence or military might which by its very use decries our claim to noble cause.  We should have proposed what the Russians now offer.  Duh.  Military might?  Are you Syriaus?

I’m Smarter Than You and Your Institutions Too!

Is there a reason a little old grey haired Caucasian lady cannot enter the Taylor-Zimmerman fray?  I don’t think so.  Hence, my thoughts on the whole mess in this context:  I was not on the jury.  I did not watch the trial.  I have not reviewed the evidence or listened to the jurors “Monday Morning Quarterback” themselves, which if nothing else is truly bizarre.  There are some issues that for me merit additional thought, however.

We have reached an interesting time in our nation when a ½ Peruvian man shoots a Black boy and the issue is perceived as racial and the verdict is perceived as racial.  The message is if I see it as racial then by definition it is racial.  I am smarter than the prosecuting and defense attorneys, not to mention the jurors.

We have reached an interesting time in our nation when the trial and jury system established by our founding fathers is consistently questioned by folks who did not participate in the process.  I am concerned about the message sent by those not there who now attack a verdict.  Have we lost all confidence in the American judicial system?  Is each one of us smarter than our 200 year old process?  The message is I am smarter than our judicial system.

We have reached an interesting time in our nation when a man can arm himself and walk his neighborhood, playing protector.  What are we thinking?  A non-trained civilian, armed, walking a neighborhood, looking for trouble is a good thing?  Worse, when the police advise this man what to do he ignores that advice.  Scares the bejeezus out of me.  The message is I am not only smarter than law enforcement; I am smarter than any expert in any field.

I have lamented the observation that everyone is now an expert on public education.  It appears that this lament was far too narrow in scope.  We must now recognize that everyone is a racial expert, a jury trial expert, a law enforcement expert.  Each of us is smarter than you and the institutions you support. 

If I believe that, if I believe that somehow my opinions equal knowledge and expertise, then all our institutions are in jeopardy, not just public education.  Frankly, when it comes to public education I truly do know more than non-educators, I am smarter, my opinion is based on training and expertise.  When it comes to other institutional issues, I may have opinions, but have no real expertise.  My opinion does not count in these areas.  Protesting the outcomes of an American institution bothers me deeply.

Have we all become so smart that we do not recognize there are things we do not know?  I do not know what I do not know, but I know that there are many things I do not know.  When I find those areas I am the student, not the master. 

Bottom line for me in the Zimmerman case is the post verdict verdict:  All of us are smarter than all of us including those with expertise.  I am smarter than you and your institutions.  My opinion by definition is right.

Yet, I recognize all of the above is just my opinion and my observations.  Those should not be the basis for decision making, but perhaps the basis for reflection.  That is my goal.

I am not right just because I think this way. 

Scary, scary times.

The 237th 4th

Ah, the 4^th of July:  Flags, BBQ, parades, fireworks, apple pie and homemade ice cream.  I have seen many celebrations in my life, and have secretly celebrated the revolution of 1776 in other ways.  Usually with the following thoughts regarding our philosophical history:

Thomas Jefferson was way out there in 1776.  He wrote on behalf of the Continental Congress a list of unresolved grievances against the King of England, grievances so heinous as to justify a declaration of independence from the British Crown and the de facto declaration of war against England.  Jefferson was operating from a paradigm, a way of thinking, a view of the world that was unique, was radical, was without precedent.  Governments prior to ours were justified by right of birth or by might, never justified by those who were governed.  Assuming people could rule themselves was the most liberal thought of the day.  Others had theoretically argued this from Plato to John Locke, but only here did representatives of those 13 states place their names on a declaration with the commitment of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  What was this philosophy that moved men of means to commit so thoroughly when they had little chance for a successful revolution?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Wow.  All men created equal.  All men at birth have rights.  Those rights include life, they include liberty, and they include the pursuit of happiness.  Really?  Radical.  Liberal.  Far out.  No conservative supported these notions as they were blasphemy to the prevailing notions that there was noble blood, that those born to the nobility were obligated to rule, mostly as tyrants, that those born to humble folk owed their loyalty and labor to the King, had no rights to property or profit, and the only rights they had were given by the King.  The state ruled as it always had, by birth right.  Should a state be conquered by another state, then a new inherited royal family would be established.  That is the way it was.  Birth was a political and economic life sentence.  Into this world and this context, these men said, “No!  All men are equal.”  Clearly from the majority point of view they were wrong!  All men have rights at birth!  Balderdash!  Those rights include their own lives, (Poppycock!) and their own liberty to map their own lives to pursue their own ends.  Blasphemy!  That no state should intervene in these rights but should protect them.  Birth should not determine futures.  What a philosophical stand.  This turned the historic international notion of power and rights upside down.  It meant that one did not receive rights from an earthly monarch born to rule, but one inherently had rights at birth, including the right to self government and the overthrow of earthly monarchs.

I believe it is hard for us to understand how radical this philosophy was at the time.  Yes, the language was sexist and at the time these men were thinking “men” and thinking Anglo Saxon men.  I forgive them contextually.  The history of our nation founded on these principles has been the history of exercising protection for the rights of our citizens earned at birth, whether they are in the majority or minority, whether they are male or female, whether they believe as I do or not, we practice freedom here and support the rights of our citizens.

We forget that.  We forget that when some argue that their view of the world is the “right” view and it merits suppressing the views of others and trampling on the rights of others.  We forget that when some argue that their view of the world is the “right” view and it merits securing economic safety for the wealthiest while resenting providing life support to the poorest.  We forget that when some argue that providing education to all children is not the right thing to do and that some children deserve better education than others.  The Founding Fathers were willing to sacrifice their entire fortunes and their lives for the philosophy of the equality of the rights of all.  We have a hard time paying a few more taxes.

On this Independence Day I fear we have drifted from our founding notions to a nation of wannabe aristocrats who do not believe in equality at all, much less equality earned at birth.  Jefferson would be sad and mad. 

Today, I celebrate the radical form of government we enjoy, a form of government based on the most absurd assumption that all people have rights at birth and should govern themselves.  I celebrate that I will protect the rights of those I totally disagree with, who are different from me in beliefs, DNA and sexual preference.  I believe that is the essence of the formation of the government of the United States of America.  This form of government does not yet exist in the Middle East, or in North Korea, or in China, or in many other states.  Few people in those nations may safely stand and advocate such a government.  It is too radical.  And, it would not likely be successful without a liberal education of the people within those nations.  We must be ever diligent against the forces in this nation who would undermine the equal rights of our citizens as determined by characteristics at birth.  That is our philosophical heritage confirmed by the blood and valor of generations of our forefathers and foremothers.  For those who know this and remain willing to support these rights, join me in the celebration!

Happy 4^th of July, 2013!

Be Prepared

The school year ends, or is very close. It is times like this and each fall when the year resumes that I most miss being an educator. I so clearly remember the happy/sad feelings as the class in which I vested myself for 10 months departed. I so clearly remember the panic of grades and check out. I so clearly remember the extraordinary effort it takes to both shut down a school year and then a few months later crank it up again. I still attend the award assemblies, concerts, powder puff games, fund days and field trips of my local school, disconnected by the lack of knowing the kids, connected by the rituals that transcend the reformers model of what school should be all about. Clearly, once the testing is over, school is not out, it returns to local community values and institutions.


So on this first day of June, a Saturday, I awake after a wonderful week of hurrah at my local schools to discover I have missed the big picture and larger issue. Again. The Boy Scouts will allow gay boys to join the Scouts, but the Baptists won’t let them meet in their churches. I have returned to the rancor I felt while writing my previous post on fundamentalism. What in the world are we doing?

I am not a great fan of the Boy Scouts. I believe they teach young men important skills like knot tying, camping, fire starting, whittling, hiking, love of nature, etc. I remember helping my sons learn the Boy Scout Oath and believe I can recite it even today, embedded in my brain from years of practice somewhere just below John 3:16. It has always bothered me that girls could not join the Scouts and had to have a separate but unequal branch of their own. Finally the scouts stopped racial discrimination and now sexual orientation discrimination, but girls still can’t join. Isn’t it funny that a black, gay 11 year old will be allowed to join an organization that girls cannot? Hence, I am not a great fan. However, I still live with the irony that men who were former slaves were allowed to vote before women. But I digress.

I do believe that every step we take toward tolerance is a good step, and every step we take toward banning, rejecting, blaming, and judging others for either attributes they inherited or attributes they assumed is a bad step. I have no desire to engage here in the debate regarding whether homosexuality is an inherited or chosen attribute. I simply recognize that among our population are people of both sexes who prefer a partner of the same sex for whatever reason. I do not believe this is a contagious attribute requiring isolation for fear it will rub off. It simply is an attribute. (In fact, I worry more about those who choose to be fundamentalists as this clearly is not a genetic attribute.) The Boy Scouts is for young men aged 11 to 17, and I suspect many of whom have yet to have a sexual experience nor are they sure of their sexual orientation. I continue to try to picture a pre-pubescent 11 year old boy coming out of the closet.

Regardless, the Boy Scouts now allow young men who claim homosexuality to join. Enter the Baptists. They claim the Bible clearly says homosexuality is a choice and a sin. Really? I addressed all those fundamental belief structures in “The Antonym of Fundamentalism” and shall not repeat it here. The Baptist Church, however, is now taking steps to ban Scouts from meeting in their buildings. They are to be banished. They are to be isolated. They are turned away at the gate because they are sinners. Really? Since when do Christians reject sinners rather than forgive them?

It is this approach of the fundamentalists that is ripping our planet apart. The radical Islamist must have it his way (notice I say “his”) or will declare jihad. The radical Christian, evidently, must have it his way or he will do the same. I see no difference. Both stances reflect the notion that my position is holy, yours is sinful, I know the ultimate truths and you do not, therefore, think like me or be punished. Amazing. Not even Hitler demanded such loyalty to right-think. McCarthy and Dan Patrick waged terrible witch hunts to find people who did not practice right-think, but though they did damage, as a nation we eventually wised up. The Baptists now model the same thinking as the radical Islamists, Dan Patrick, Joe McCarthy and Hitler. They are un-American. Baptists have an absolute right to believe what they want to believe. Baptists should not have an absolute right to practice judgmental discrimination in this country and retain their tax exempt status. Period.

As for the Boy Scouts, good for you for letting all boys in. As the fundamental churches reject you I trust you have learned a lesson from those who have been your biggest supporters: Discrimination feels “right” when you are in the majority. Discrimination is terrible when you are the victim. Our nation was built on the notion of protecting the rights of the minority from the discrimination of the majority. It is time to become real Americans.

The Boy Scout motto remains “Be Prepared.” Perhaps there should be a new merit badge regarding fundamentalism and discrimination for boys to earn to ensure they are prepared for life. Sounds American to me.