The sun is out, the flowers are blooming, and I am reminded that it is important in our hectic, often troublesome world to "stop and smell the roses"...literally. Life has a way of getting us down, sapping our strength, tying us up in knots worrying about a lot of things we really have no control over, or painting life as only bleak existence. We need to use our five senses to relieve stress and help balance our lives.
So stop and smell those roses, or whatever is blooming right now. As a gardener I love my roses, lilac, honeysuckle, and butterfly bush. The smell on the breeze is sweet and relaxing. The scents of lavender. rosemary, and fennel when rubbed between my fingers is invigorating. And even freshly-mowed grass brings a smile to my face (specially since I now have an electric mower:))
The sight of purple and white crocuses, yellow daffodils, and green sprigs of fennel starts break up the gray of winter and signal that spring is here (or nearly so). The leaves of tulip and grape hyacinth leaves are teases to upcoming color bursts. And the purple winter heather blooms and red dogwood stems linger in transition. I love watching the seasons change in my garden.
The sounds of jaybird, robin, and several small birds as they visit my bird-feeding sites is audible sunshine. The woodpecker banging its beak on some neighborhood downspout or signpost is a creature wake-up call. And the unseen, but clearly heard beaver splashes and frog croaks are music to my ears.
The wind and the rain as I walk invigorate me. The sunshine breaks warm me. Sometimes, when it is warmer and drier, I like to just sit out on the front lawn and gaze around, silently taking in the experience of the plants nearby and letting the wider world just fade into the background for a while.
Later, when the strawberries, raspberries, and herbs, bloom, I will savor the taste of freshly picked produce. Maybe this year I will again try my hand at growing vegetables -nothing is as sweet as a freshly picked cherry tomato from a back yard planter). But for now I resolve to slow down and savor my food, try new tastes, and not just eat mindlessly.
I see people out walking who are oblivious to the world around them. They walk with radios/music players plugged into their ears. I am not judging, it may be that they need the music/talking to get them motivated to walk/run, and I am glad to see them exercising. But I just think of what they are missing. I want to hear the birds, feel the breeze, and ponder thoughts with only the company of my footsteps. I want to experience nature, not just travel through it.
My suggestion: take some time to experience beauty. Life is too short to major on what is wrong with the world. There is plenty of time to ponder that. I know, I rant on things, just like I plug into the radio (music mainly) when I start work for the day. But I also like to step away from the madness to experience beauty.
And you now have another avenue to experience beauty. My wife, has started a blog called Adorned in Beauty. I highly recommend it. She has been my "fashion consultant" since before we were married, and she has an impeccable sense of taste. She beautifies my life and I think you'll like the beautiful things she has found. She also created the banner for my blog, as well as doing a recent redesign of the layout. She is my sweetie, the top beauty in my world :)
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
personal responsiblity on the air..my take
For about 10 years I was a part-time staff announcer on a small Christian radio station in Phoenix. I started as a volunteer, answering phones and pulling records for a Saturday morning music request program. After a while there I decided I would like to try my hand being on air so I contacted the general manager and started training with him and the station engineer. I worked mainly weekends and overnight and some evenings occasionally. I would run programs, do weather and news breaks, and even had some shifts when I could choose my own music and create commentary to tie it all together.
Since ours was a small listener-supported station we had no commercials, but did have a loyal following, many of whom would call, any time of day. Some would like to chat, or had a record request, or sometimes need advice for a personal crisis(especially on the overnight shifts). When the phone rang, it was my responsibility to answer it, be polite and helpful, being aware that I was representing the station (and God, since we were a Christian station). I took that very seriously, even when I was trying to do several things at once - run programs, pick music, record stuff for later broadcast -and check the news wire.
I was often the only person at the station during my shifts, so I operated the control board, took transmitter readings (making sure we were FCC-compliant), and kept records of what we played, all the while making the necessary on air announcements. One time we even had the power go out while I was doing a station ID break. The engineer happened to be there at the time, so I wasn't alone, but we still had to coordinate calling the airport to alert them our tower lights were out, get the backup generator running, and still answer the phones - people wanted to know why we weren't on the air.
All this came back to mind in the wake of Rush Limbaugh's vulgar and outrageous verbal attack on Sandra Fluke -a woman smeared with sexist slurs, whose only "crime" was a desire to testify before Congress about a matter important to her. It wasn't just the words he used, nor that he has a history of such remarks. The worst thing is that he apparently doesn't care what comes out of his mouth when he opens the mike, takes no responsibility for it, and obviously has no one that he feels he must answer to.
In my radio work I was very careful what I said on the air. Not only were our supporters listening, but our general manager was as well. If any one of us had uttered anything close to what Rush said (not that we ever would) we would have been promptly fired, no questions asked. Apparently Rush has no one in that position. Plus we were focused on giving encouragement to our listeners, not rile them up to "go on the attack"
The only thing worse than Rush's comments is the silence that followed them, from those who share his conservative beliefs. It really shouldn't matter what your politics is, common decency demands that you treat others as you would want to be treated, and speak up in protest when others cross the line. There are those on the left that I avoid or sample lightly because of their tendency to be vulgar or derogatory. And "false equivalency" comments are just a way to dodge speaking up.
I have never cared for Bill Maher for instance. "Politically incorrect" is a term I loath, because in my mind it is just a rationale to be rude. If we want to be taken seriously when we criticize bad behavior, we must criticize without taking political views into mind. When we were kids and got into trouble it was no use bringing up others bad deeds. All our parents were focused was correcting us, because we were under their roof.
Words matter and we should care about what we say, how we say it, and to whom (and about whom) we say them. Not just for legal reasons or FCC rules,etc, but just because cultivating civility is the right thing to do and helps build better communities, locally, nationally, and globally.
Since ours was a small listener-supported station we had no commercials, but did have a loyal following, many of whom would call, any time of day. Some would like to chat, or had a record request, or sometimes need advice for a personal crisis(especially on the overnight shifts). When the phone rang, it was my responsibility to answer it, be polite and helpful, being aware that I was representing the station (and God, since we were a Christian station). I took that very seriously, even when I was trying to do several things at once - run programs, pick music, record stuff for later broadcast -and check the news wire.
I was often the only person at the station during my shifts, so I operated the control board, took transmitter readings (making sure we were FCC-compliant), and kept records of what we played, all the while making the necessary on air announcements. One time we even had the power go out while I was doing a station ID break. The engineer happened to be there at the time, so I wasn't alone, but we still had to coordinate calling the airport to alert them our tower lights were out, get the backup generator running, and still answer the phones - people wanted to know why we weren't on the air.
All this came back to mind in the wake of Rush Limbaugh's vulgar and outrageous verbal attack on Sandra Fluke -a woman smeared with sexist slurs, whose only "crime" was a desire to testify before Congress about a matter important to her. It wasn't just the words he used, nor that he has a history of such remarks. The worst thing is that he apparently doesn't care what comes out of his mouth when he opens the mike, takes no responsibility for it, and obviously has no one that he feels he must answer to.
In my radio work I was very careful what I said on the air. Not only were our supporters listening, but our general manager was as well. If any one of us had uttered anything close to what Rush said (not that we ever would) we would have been promptly fired, no questions asked. Apparently Rush has no one in that position. Plus we were focused on giving encouragement to our listeners, not rile them up to "go on the attack"
The only thing worse than Rush's comments is the silence that followed them, from those who share his conservative beliefs. It really shouldn't matter what your politics is, common decency demands that you treat others as you would want to be treated, and speak up in protest when others cross the line. There are those on the left that I avoid or sample lightly because of their tendency to be vulgar or derogatory. And "false equivalency" comments are just a way to dodge speaking up.
I have never cared for Bill Maher for instance. "Politically incorrect" is a term I loath, because in my mind it is just a rationale to be rude. If we want to be taken seriously when we criticize bad behavior, we must criticize without taking political views into mind. When we were kids and got into trouble it was no use bringing up others bad deeds. All our parents were focused was correcting us, because we were under their roof.
Words matter and we should care about what we say, how we say it, and to whom (and about whom) we say them. Not just for legal reasons or FCC rules,etc, but just because cultivating civility is the right thing to do and helps build better communities, locally, nationally, and globally.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
not my enemy
The presidential campaign and the sideshow that accompanies it has taken a turn towards the absurd. Some commentators have shown beyond a doubt that they have tin ears and blind eyes. It is one thing to be cynical but quite another to be inflexible. I don't think I have to name names, 'cause I think you know who I mean.
It is bad enough to view efforts to provide healthcare for all as dangerous or to portray seeking to have peacemaking a key component of our foreign policy as weakness. It is harmful to characterize calls for civility in our political discussions as censorship. But when an appeal from the president for teamwork and basic fairness is denounced as an appeal for class warfare we have reached the stone ear stage indeed.
We are all Americans, we are all in this together. I think we need to pause and remember that, no matter what our political, religious, or social views. We share this country, and we must remember to share. No one gets to hog it all and whoever is elected in November will be President of all and deserves our respect. That is the American way.
I am a Democrat. I believe in an active government, acting as "we the People" in carrying out the desires of the nation for a "more perfect Union", providing for the "common defense", and promoting the "general welfare" espoused in the Preamble to the Constitution. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate and not hold ourselves aloof and simply blame them for "not trying hard enough". And I believe that government is "us",not some distant "other" to be feared, opposed, or "limited".
As such I obviously have serious differences with all of the GOP presidential candidates and their supporters in media and in elected office. I will work to oppose their efforts and argue against their positions. But, and this is a very big "but', they are not my enemy. We are not in a war, not for the "soul of America" nor for"civilization", and I refuse to portray our political disagreements in such militaristic terms.
Even when others may slip into that mode, I refuse. If the (to my mind) unthinkable happens and a Republican wins the White House I will respect them as President , just as I have any other President. I will have discussions with those with whom I disagree in a spirit of mutual respect. I will walk away from, but not demean, those who seek fights and refuse to even listen to opposing views. I may brand opposing views as absurd when warranted, but will work to refrain from making personal attacks. As I have said before, we are all Americans and we must all work together for what is best for everyone.
This holds true for our actions in the world. Make no mistake, we have real enemies out there, folks who have taken up arms against us and would seek to do us harm. We must actively oppose that. But we must not go around looking for trouble, nor brand those nations who may differ with us on policies as "not our friends" (like the attitudes of many in the US toward France and Germany over the Iraq war). For those of us who hold to faith in God we have a divine mandate to "seek peace and pursue it" and "as much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men". Blessings are called out for peacemakers, not warmongers, and we should not take that lightly. We all must "share" this world.
Set your "weapons" down and let's all work together to make this nation, and our world, be the best it can be, where nobody goes hungry, or sick,or homeless, or friendless. We all can make a difference...if only we try.
It is bad enough to view efforts to provide healthcare for all as dangerous or to portray seeking to have peacemaking a key component of our foreign policy as weakness. It is harmful to characterize calls for civility in our political discussions as censorship. But when an appeal from the president for teamwork and basic fairness is denounced as an appeal for class warfare we have reached the stone ear stage indeed.
We are all Americans, we are all in this together. I think we need to pause and remember that, no matter what our political, religious, or social views. We share this country, and we must remember to share. No one gets to hog it all and whoever is elected in November will be President of all and deserves our respect. That is the American way.
I am a Democrat. I believe in an active government, acting as "we the People" in carrying out the desires of the nation for a "more perfect Union", providing for the "common defense", and promoting the "general welfare" espoused in the Preamble to the Constitution. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate and not hold ourselves aloof and simply blame them for "not trying hard enough". And I believe that government is "us",not some distant "other" to be feared, opposed, or "limited".
As such I obviously have serious differences with all of the GOP presidential candidates and their supporters in media and in elected office. I will work to oppose their efforts and argue against their positions. But, and this is a very big "but', they are not my enemy. We are not in a war, not for the "soul of America" nor for"civilization", and I refuse to portray our political disagreements in such militaristic terms.
Even when others may slip into that mode, I refuse. If the (to my mind) unthinkable happens and a Republican wins the White House I will respect them as President , just as I have any other President. I will have discussions with those with whom I disagree in a spirit of mutual respect. I will walk away from, but not demean, those who seek fights and refuse to even listen to opposing views. I may brand opposing views as absurd when warranted, but will work to refrain from making personal attacks. As I have said before, we are all Americans and we must all work together for what is best for everyone.
This holds true for our actions in the world. Make no mistake, we have real enemies out there, folks who have taken up arms against us and would seek to do us harm. We must actively oppose that. But we must not go around looking for trouble, nor brand those nations who may differ with us on policies as "not our friends" (like the attitudes of many in the US toward France and Germany over the Iraq war). For those of us who hold to faith in God we have a divine mandate to "seek peace and pursue it" and "as much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men". Blessings are called out for peacemakers, not warmongers, and we should not take that lightly. We all must "share" this world.
Set your "weapons" down and let's all work together to make this nation, and our world, be the best it can be, where nobody goes hungry, or sick,or homeless, or friendless. We all can make a difference...if only we try.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
go to the source
We live in a technologically advanced, but informationally stunted world. We seemingly have all the information we need at our fingertips, but often lack the will, or curiosity, to use it to our advantage. We all too frequently fall back on letting someone else tell us what to do and what is true when we should be investigating for ourselves and making better decisions.
Politics is just one of those areas, but it gets a great amount of attention every four years at least, as is the case now. We are blessed in this country to be free to elect our leaders. In much of the world this is not the case and we should not take lightly the responsibility to make wise decisions as to who to support. The GOP debates may seem tedious and simply forums for talking point reiteration, but they can serve to help us identify what is really important to us, even for those who aren't planning to vote GOP.
It is more than just "fact-checking" that we need to do. We also need to check quotes and context. People tend to view speakers as "scholarly" or "expert" when they cite history and quote historical documents. But how often do these same people check the sources of the citations and quotes to see if they are accurate? Not very often in my opinion. And that can lead people to make very unsound decisions.
Case in point: during the latest debate Newt Gingrich was ranting about the judiciary and how it was damaging America with bad rulings...that it was out of control and needed to be reined in. He made a couple of really outlandish suggestions - getting rid of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (conservatives "favorite" court) and summoning justices before Congress to "explain" their "controversial" rulings. That was bad enough, but his rational was worse...and that (again) got overlooked in the analysis.
Gingrich is certainly no friend of the courts, but he covers his blatant animosity with a 'scholarly" sheen, by using quotes and making historical references to his advantage. Unfortunately, he often misquotes and takes things out of context. As a preacher I once heard said " a text out of context becomes a pretext". This describes Newt very well. I won't belabor the point or overwhelm you with examples, but let me just cite a couple examples.
He stated that the founders intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government. He was referencing the discussion of the judiciary in the Federalist Papers, the collection of letters written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, to persuade New York state to ratify the Constitution. They talked about the relative weakness of the judicial branch, but in a matter advocating protecting it's independence from the other two branches (executive and legislative), not subordinating it to them.
To quote Federalist #78 : the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power ...it can never attack with success either of the other two..all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks". They were not saying that the judiciary should be the weakest. They were saying that it was in the most vulnerable position and needed protection (like with lifetime appointments and a prohibition on cutting a justice's salary during their time of service).
Newt also said that the courts were not the final arbiter of the law. But, to quote the same Federalist paper "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts" and "the courts of justice..whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing".
For a supposed "scholar" of the Constitution to be this wrong is not accidental, it is purposeful. It is an attack upon the part of government designed to be the protector of our rights and should not be viewed as merely "crackpot". As a former history/poli sci major myself this makes my blood boil!
I would urge anyone to avail themselves of three resources which can be invaluable in combating, personally and collectively, the misinformation that is spewed out regularly by those who seek to influence our political decisions. Three links:
1. The Federalist Papers, if you don't have a hard copy (as I do)
2. The Constitution (you really should have a hard copy...and read it often)
3. Thomas.gov...where you can look up the history, sponsors, and full text of any congressional legislation...to find out what it "really" says.
With these three you can combat much of the disinformation being thrown out there during this political season. Don't let anyone (not even me) make your decisions for you. As the saying goes "God gave you a brain, now use it"
Politics is just one of those areas, but it gets a great amount of attention every four years at least, as is the case now. We are blessed in this country to be free to elect our leaders. In much of the world this is not the case and we should not take lightly the responsibility to make wise decisions as to who to support. The GOP debates may seem tedious and simply forums for talking point reiteration, but they can serve to help us identify what is really important to us, even for those who aren't planning to vote GOP.
It is more than just "fact-checking" that we need to do. We also need to check quotes and context. People tend to view speakers as "scholarly" or "expert" when they cite history and quote historical documents. But how often do these same people check the sources of the citations and quotes to see if they are accurate? Not very often in my opinion. And that can lead people to make very unsound decisions.
Case in point: during the latest debate Newt Gingrich was ranting about the judiciary and how it was damaging America with bad rulings...that it was out of control and needed to be reined in. He made a couple of really outlandish suggestions - getting rid of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (conservatives "favorite" court) and summoning justices before Congress to "explain" their "controversial" rulings. That was bad enough, but his rational was worse...and that (again) got overlooked in the analysis.
Gingrich is certainly no friend of the courts, but he covers his blatant animosity with a 'scholarly" sheen, by using quotes and making historical references to his advantage. Unfortunately, he often misquotes and takes things out of context. As a preacher I once heard said " a text out of context becomes a pretext". This describes Newt very well. I won't belabor the point or overwhelm you with examples, but let me just cite a couple examples.
He stated that the founders intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government. He was referencing the discussion of the judiciary in the Federalist Papers, the collection of letters written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, to persuade New York state to ratify the Constitution. They talked about the relative weakness of the judicial branch, but in a matter advocating protecting it's independence from the other two branches (executive and legislative), not subordinating it to them.
To quote Federalist #78 : the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power ...it can never attack with success either of the other two..all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks". They were not saying that the judiciary should be the weakest. They were saying that it was in the most vulnerable position and needed protection (like with lifetime appointments and a prohibition on cutting a justice's salary during their time of service).
Newt also said that the courts were not the final arbiter of the law. But, to quote the same Federalist paper "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts" and "the courts of justice..whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing".
For a supposed "scholar" of the Constitution to be this wrong is not accidental, it is purposeful. It is an attack upon the part of government designed to be the protector of our rights and should not be viewed as merely "crackpot". As a former history/poli sci major myself this makes my blood boil!
I would urge anyone to avail themselves of three resources which can be invaluable in combating, personally and collectively, the misinformation that is spewed out regularly by those who seek to influence our political decisions. Three links:
1. The Federalist Papers, if you don't have a hard copy (as I do)
2. The Constitution (you really should have a hard copy...and read it often)
3. Thomas.gov...where you can look up the history, sponsors, and full text of any congressional legislation...to find out what it "really" says.
With these three you can combat much of the disinformation being thrown out there during this political season. Don't let anyone (not even me) make your decisions for you. As the saying goes "God gave you a brain, now use it"
Sunday, December 11, 2011
ask the right questions
Once again we have a bit of humor in the presidential race , thanks to Rick Perry. At a meeting with an Iowa newspaper's editorial board he was criticizing President Obama's Supreme Court appointees, yet couldn't remember correctly the name of one (Sotomayor) and misstated the number of Justices on the Court. Surely a candidate for president should know these things. The filling of a Supreme Court vacancy is a vital presidential task and one that may arise during this next presidential term, considering Justice Ginzberg's health. While it is important that a candidate be accurate in these details , however, this is not what got my attention in his comments.
As we laugh at these gaffs we often miss the bigger issue. It is the wrongful thinking that is behind the statements these candidates make. Because Rick Perry is not alone in his sentiments, just the most visible at times. He used two adjectives to describe the Justices, used both negatively, when only one is true and that one should be viewed as a positive not negative.
He said that the Justices were "unelected" and "unaccountable". The first is true but for reasons I will explain shortly, this I believe is a positive, not negative characteristic of both the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal court system. The second assertion is definitely false, but you have to think harder than a "fifth grader" to understand the reasons why.
First there is the appointment and confirmation process, where the President and the Senate, representing the other two branches of our government (both elected by the people) , choose the members of the Court. Then there is the ability of a latter Court to overturn earlier decisions after review (see Plessy v Ferguson (1896) overturned by the Brown decision (1954) as the most notable example).
There is also the ability for Congress to pass Constitutional amendments to correct deficiencies in the law and render moot a Court's decision. Prime example of this was the 13th Amendment (1865) , outlawing slavery , in response to the Dred Scott decision . There was also the 16th Amendment (1913) ,passed to overcome Court objections to a federal income tax.
And there is the matter of impeachment. Just as for the President, any member of the federal judiciary can be impeached by the House of Representatives and face trial in the Senate, with conviction resulting in removal from office. Throughout our history 19 federal court justices have been impeached (including one Supreme Court justice) and several have been removed from office after trial in the Senate. So you see, the justices and their decisions are accountable.
The other contention, that they are unelected, is true. But I would contend that this is a positive characteristic, not negative. I have always felt that the election of judges, the common practice for state courts, was not good. Members of the legislative and executive branches should be responsive to the people. The members of the judicial branch, the judges, should be responsive to the law, protecting the people's rights. All rights, not just the majority.
When cases reach the federal courts the stakes are higher. The rulings will often affect many people from multiple states (the health care reform cases are one example) and the questions reach to the core of fundamental rights and freedoms. Also, the issues may invoke alleged overreach by the executive or legislative branches of the federal government. The courts must have the independence to rule against either branch if the case warrants. A lifetime appointment guarantees this.
Our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution involve the right to be unpopular. To voice unpopular views, have unpopular beliefs, to gather with unpopular people to advocate unpopular causes. Popular opinions do not need protection. Majority views do not need special protection. They are protected by their own popularity. But minority opinions, like minority populations, are vulnerable to the "tyranny of the majority", and need safeguarding by a court system where judges are free to make the "unpopular" decision to defend them.
Our history as a country is one of evolving protection for minority populations and views, expanding our understanding of what it means to be free, and challenging ourselves to open our minds to the truth that if anyone's freedom is curtailed we all suffer. We cannot go backward. We must stay vigilant. Rick Perry is not alone in his skewed views on the Court…his fellow GOP candidates all share basically the same views. We must hold them "accountable" for these and render them all "unelected"
As we laugh at these gaffs we often miss the bigger issue. It is the wrongful thinking that is behind the statements these candidates make. Because Rick Perry is not alone in his sentiments, just the most visible at times. He used two adjectives to describe the Justices, used both negatively, when only one is true and that one should be viewed as a positive not negative.
He said that the Justices were "unelected" and "unaccountable". The first is true but for reasons I will explain shortly, this I believe is a positive, not negative characteristic of both the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal court system. The second assertion is definitely false, but you have to think harder than a "fifth grader" to understand the reasons why.
First there is the appointment and confirmation process, where the President and the Senate, representing the other two branches of our government (both elected by the people) , choose the members of the Court. Then there is the ability of a latter Court to overturn earlier decisions after review (see Plessy v Ferguson (1896) overturned by the Brown decision (1954) as the most notable example).
There is also the ability for Congress to pass Constitutional amendments to correct deficiencies in the law and render moot a Court's decision. Prime example of this was the 13th Amendment (1865) , outlawing slavery , in response to the Dred Scott decision . There was also the 16th Amendment (1913) ,passed to overcome Court objections to a federal income tax.
And there is the matter of impeachment. Just as for the President, any member of the federal judiciary can be impeached by the House of Representatives and face trial in the Senate, with conviction resulting in removal from office. Throughout our history 19 federal court justices have been impeached (including one Supreme Court justice) and several have been removed from office after trial in the Senate. So you see, the justices and their decisions are accountable.
The other contention, that they are unelected, is true. But I would contend that this is a positive characteristic, not negative. I have always felt that the election of judges, the common practice for state courts, was not good. Members of the legislative and executive branches should be responsive to the people. The members of the judicial branch, the judges, should be responsive to the law, protecting the people's rights. All rights, not just the majority.
When cases reach the federal courts the stakes are higher. The rulings will often affect many people from multiple states (the health care reform cases are one example) and the questions reach to the core of fundamental rights and freedoms. Also, the issues may invoke alleged overreach by the executive or legislative branches of the federal government. The courts must have the independence to rule against either branch if the case warrants. A lifetime appointment guarantees this.
Our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution involve the right to be unpopular. To voice unpopular views, have unpopular beliefs, to gather with unpopular people to advocate unpopular causes. Popular opinions do not need protection. Majority views do not need special protection. They are protected by their own popularity. But minority opinions, like minority populations, are vulnerable to the "tyranny of the majority", and need safeguarding by a court system where judges are free to make the "unpopular" decision to defend them.
Our history as a country is one of evolving protection for minority populations and views, expanding our understanding of what it means to be free, and challenging ourselves to open our minds to the truth that if anyone's freedom is curtailed we all suffer. We cannot go backward. We must stay vigilant. Rick Perry is not alone in his skewed views on the Court…his fellow GOP candidates all share basically the same views. We must hold them "accountable" for these and render them all "unelected"
Thursday, November 10, 2011
no laughing matter
We all had a good laugh this week at Rick Perry's expense when he had a brain fuzz on air during the GOP debate. When he stated that there were three agencies of the federal government that he would get rid of if he became President, and then could only name two, he had 52 seconds of oops.
I am sure that SNL folks were probably saying to themselves.."dang, he did his parody better than anything we could ever do". Many are writing his campaign epitaph as we speak. It was one of those memorable political gaffe moments we will be talking about for years.
Unfortunately, most people missed the shear audacity of what he was proposing due to the delivery..or lack thereof..of his points. The three departments that he was proposing doing away with were Education, Commerce, and....Energy (the one he couldn't quite remember).
The Department of Education has been a frequent target of conservatives, so it wasn't really a surprise to be mentioned. They feel it should be left up to the states. Some have even come out against the federal college loan program, so you can see how out of touch they are...with tuition going up and up and less and less people able to afford it.
The Department of Energy has also been mentioned recently, but seriously? In the aftermath of the BP spill, coal mine collapses, and the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan...he wants to eliminate the agency responsible for regulating and inspecting - and holding companies accountable? How do you enforce the safety laws governing the safe production and use of energy without a Department of Energy?
And Commerce? Normally one of the lines of attack that conservatives use to target federal agencies is to contend that the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the government to do such things. In this case they have no room to stand. Article I, section 8, Clause 3 enumerates congressional power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Commerce, both interstate and overseas, is solidly a part of federal government responsibility and how can it be done without the Department of Commerce?
People tend to forget that a law passed by Congress has no effect in and of itself. It only takes effect when it is "executed"...put into effect and enforced by the Executive Branch. The president is aided in this task by his Cabinet and the agencies they oversee. For a nation of over 300 million that takes a lot of people and simplistic cutting does a grave disservice to the nation's business..and economy.
Laughing at gaffs and brain fuzzes is one thing..political theatre. But lets not forget the bad messages being mangled in the process. Being president, and running for it, is serious business, and no laughing matter.
I am sure that SNL folks were probably saying to themselves.."dang, he did his parody better than anything we could ever do". Many are writing his campaign epitaph as we speak. It was one of those memorable political gaffe moments we will be talking about for years.
Unfortunately, most people missed the shear audacity of what he was proposing due to the delivery..or lack thereof..of his points. The three departments that he was proposing doing away with were Education, Commerce, and....Energy (the one he couldn't quite remember).
The Department of Education has been a frequent target of conservatives, so it wasn't really a surprise to be mentioned. They feel it should be left up to the states. Some have even come out against the federal college loan program, so you can see how out of touch they are...with tuition going up and up and less and less people able to afford it.
The Department of Energy has also been mentioned recently, but seriously? In the aftermath of the BP spill, coal mine collapses, and the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan...he wants to eliminate the agency responsible for regulating and inspecting - and holding companies accountable? How do you enforce the safety laws governing the safe production and use of energy without a Department of Energy?
And Commerce? Normally one of the lines of attack that conservatives use to target federal agencies is to contend that the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the government to do such things. In this case they have no room to stand. Article I, section 8, Clause 3 enumerates congressional power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Commerce, both interstate and overseas, is solidly a part of federal government responsibility and how can it be done without the Department of Commerce?
People tend to forget that a law passed by Congress has no effect in and of itself. It only takes effect when it is "executed"...put into effect and enforced by the Executive Branch. The president is aided in this task by his Cabinet and the agencies they oversee. For a nation of over 300 million that takes a lot of people and simplistic cutting does a grave disservice to the nation's business..and economy.
Laughing at gaffs and brain fuzzes is one thing..political theatre. But lets not forget the bad messages being mangled in the process. Being president, and running for it, is serious business, and no laughing matter.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
country club americanism
Country club americanism, what does that mean and why do I say I see it today? The view that America is some special "club" that only the right people can join, and where special privileges are conferred is not a new thing. Throughout our history we have struggled with acceptance of the "others" whether that be blacks, Irish/Italian/other suspect Europeans, Asians, Hispanics,or so-called "savages" i.e.native Americans. We have had troubles with accepting other faiths - the current debates over Islam reflect our earlier discord over Jews and Catholics. Remember, it was only as recent as 1960 (within my lifetime) when we finally accepted that a Catholic (JFK) could be trusted to be President...and even then some feared he would be too influenced by the Pope.
Yet it is disturbing to see and hear signs that some would welcome a return to more "exclusive" times. Sometimes it is subtle..reaction to the protests in Wisconsin as being "allowed, I guess" in a free society. Sometimes condescending ...the remarks of a sitting US Senator that "free speech is a fine idea, but we are at war" (Lindsey Graham,R-SC). And some are revisionist/unconstitutional threats - "Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy....the purpose of the First Amendment ...was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects" (Bryan Fischer, American Family Association).
It is bad enough to see the attack upon citizenship by way of the demand from some that it is not enough to be born in America...they demand that your parents prove they are citizens in order for you to be considered one (pedigree,anyone?)-contrary to the 14th Amendment. And bad also that folks would consider that freedoms in this country are only for citizens (see my earlier post on the use of the words "citizen" and "person" in the Constitution). But now to have rights reduced to "privileges" and "courtesies" for even citizens is outrageous and snobbery of the highest sort...and is why I call it "country-club americanism".
Don't get me wrong. We do have responsibilities as citizens. We have been given the great gift and privilege of being Americans and to enjoy the freedoms we have. But as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently points out, in the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded upon the belief that we are "endowed by (our) creator with certain unalienable rights...life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We exercise responsible citizenship first and foremost by defending those freedoms for all....by speaking out forcefully in their defense against anyone who would seek to restrict them from anyone.
Yet it is disturbing to see and hear signs that some would welcome a return to more "exclusive" times. Sometimes it is subtle..reaction to the protests in Wisconsin as being "allowed, I guess" in a free society. Sometimes condescending ...the remarks of a sitting US Senator that "free speech is a fine idea, but we are at war" (Lindsey Graham,R-SC). And some are revisionist/unconstitutional threats - "Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy....the purpose of the First Amendment ...was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects" (Bryan Fischer, American Family Association).
It is bad enough to see the attack upon citizenship by way of the demand from some that it is not enough to be born in America...they demand that your parents prove they are citizens in order for you to be considered one (pedigree,anyone?)-contrary to the 14th Amendment. And bad also that folks would consider that freedoms in this country are only for citizens (see my earlier post on the use of the words "citizen" and "person" in the Constitution). But now to have rights reduced to "privileges" and "courtesies" for even citizens is outrageous and snobbery of the highest sort...and is why I call it "country-club americanism".
Don't get me wrong. We do have responsibilities as citizens. We have been given the great gift and privilege of being Americans and to enjoy the freedoms we have. But as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently points out, in the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded upon the belief that we are "endowed by (our) creator with certain unalienable rights...life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We exercise responsible citizenship first and foremost by defending those freedoms for all....by speaking out forcefully in their defense against anyone who would seek to restrict them from anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)