I admit it. I am a flag-waving, America-loving, patriotic nerd. When I was a teenager, instead of posters of girls or cars, my walls were covered with a life-size replica of the Declaration of Independence, Gilbert Stuart’s portait of Washington, postcards from the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials and an autographed picture of Ronald Reagan.
I was fortunate to be born into a family who loved this country and I absorbed that from them. My maternal grandfather was a union man and he and Grandma were Democrats. My paternal grandfather had a small business and he was a Republican. It didn’t matter, though. They all loved this country.
In fact, I remember once when I was at church with my maternal grandmother. I was sitting by my cousins. The speaker mentioned that they didn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance every day anymore in schools. Grandma looked over at us demanded to know if that was true in our schools. When we told her it was, and that we did not say the Pledge every day, she swore. Right there in Sacrament Meeting. She was so indignant. I’ve rarely seen anyone so mad. But then, she lost a brother in WWII, so she knew a little bit about the price of freedom and the Pledge wasn’t just a collection of words for her.
I was also fortunate that when I was in school, especially high school, my teachers were men who fought in World War II. They believed in the fundamental goodness of this country and they had made sacrifices for this belief: storming the beaches at Normandy, fighting in foxholes, and liberating concentration camps. I may have been in the last generation of schoolchildren to be taught by unashamed patriots.
When I was fourteen, my family took a vacation to Washington D.C. At the time, the thought of being anywhere with my embarrassing parents and annoying younger siblings for two weeks felt like cruel and unusual punishment and I did not have the best attitude about this trip.
I remember being dragged to the National Archives. Could anything be more boring than going to stand in line to see a bunch of old papers?
I had little choice, though so I went. I remember standing in front of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As I looked at them, I felt sudden rush of reverence and sanctity that I have felt only very rarely since them. Even as an immature teenager, I could feel that these were very special documents. I had a spiritual experience standing in that building, in line with all the other tourists. I knew then, in the deepest parts of my soul, that America was no accident. I knew that God’s hand had been involved in the founding and that He had inspired the Founders who wrote those documents. This conviction sank deep down inside of me and it is as fundamental to my beliefs as the fact that I believe in God.
This experience in my adolescence has been confirmed and strengthened hundreds of times since then. As I have learned and lived more, my appreciation for the miracle of America has deepened and grown, as has my conviction that God has always blessed this wonderful land.
One of my hobbies is reading history and I am especially fond of early American and World War II history. While I am not an expert, or even a terribly informed amateur, I have noticed how many junctions there have in our past where the wrong turn would have been disastrous to America. Somehow, at most of these junctions, at the last moment, we have always turned the right direction.
Often, and I find this incredibly compelling, nature seemed to give us the benefit of her help. For example, Washington had his back to the East river when he and his army were dug in on Brooklyn Heights in the very early days of the Revolution. British ships were not able to come get them because of opposing winds, but they were able to keep them from crossing the river and British troops were advancing quickly from Long Island. They were trapped, perfectly and completely.
And then the fog came in. A thick fog that obscured everything. Washington’s men were able to cross the river into Manhattan and then retreat to fight another day. Had that fog not come in, it would have been over.
And of course, there was the storm that came on Christmas night later in the war, the storm that masked Washington’s troops when he crossed the Delaware and surprised the Hessians at Trenton the next morning.
Or, consider D-Day when the Allied Forces were going to cross the English Channel and land at Normandy. The weather was foul and would not permit a crossing. Eisenhower was just about to call the invasion off when the weather changed just enough to let it happen.
In these cases, and in so many other similar examples, it was as if Nature—or, perhaps, Nature’s God, was fighting for the United States.
We have certainly seen dark days in this country, and frankly, we should not have survived them. The Revolution, the Civil War, the Depression, World War II, these were all serious problems that really should have finished the United States. But they didn’t. In fact, if anything we were stronger.
Today there is a lot of worry and anxiety about our country and it exists on both sides of the political aisles. Countries with crazy leaders who hate us are getting nuclear weapons and 9/11 showed us just how vulnerable we are. The world seems less and less stable and safe every day.
At home, we have heated debates about the nature of freedom and the balance between security and liberty, between freedom and responsibility, and between individual rights and collective well-being. We worry either about the impact of global warming on the planet or the fact that all the cures seem to subtract our freedoms. Whatever side you happen to be on in the debates, I think it is fair to say that most of us are worried. Certainly the economic distress of the past few months has been an equal-opportunity stressor.
A few months ago, I was driving to my parent’s house to attend a wedding. I was preoccupied with worry about the country that I love so much. This country has been incredibly good to me and my family. It has provided us with opportunity to work and to be rewarded for that work. I want those same opportunities for my children and grandchildren.
So, I was worrying deeply about the present and especially the future. As I drove along the interstate I remembered that I had been up at night worrying when I was a child. It was near the end of the Cold War, although we didn’t know that at the time. We just knew that it was a very tense time.
I remember having fire, earthquake, and nuclear attack drills at school. Our proximity to a key Air Force base led us to live with the knowledge that we would certainly one day be the victims of a nuclear attack.
I don’t think anyone back then ever imagined that we would escape the Cold War without a single missile being fired. I think that the odds were that at least one major city would be attacked, and that the rest of us would become post-Nuclear attack zombie mutants.
And yet, somehow, we emerged from that difficult time safely. Just as we did from all the other tribulations in the past.
When I realized that, I felt peace. God has always blessed America. He has had a purpose for this country. And if He did in the past then He surely does now. He has always led us through the difficulties and the challenges and I believe He will do the same now. This is the seat of His kingdom on the earth today and I cannot believe that He is finished with His church or the country that provides its base.
The Book of Mormon tells us that there are powerful promises here in this country and no one can take those away from us. If we are righteous, that is, if my family and I are righteous, then the Lord has to honor those promises. And if I share the gospel so my friends and neighbors also know about those promises, then so much the better.
We need to do all we can to advocate for the policies we think are best. We need to give our best consideration to the issues of the day and let our voices be heard. The Church is scrupulously non-partisan and politically neutral, but they encourage us to be active and vocal. I noted in the First Presidency’s letter that was sent out during the last election that they said that there are principles compatible with the Gospel in both political parties. We need to do all we can—the Lord didn’t magically lift Washington’s army to Trenton, after all, he had to march at night in a storm—and then we need to be righteous and trust in the Lord.
But our past gives us reason for optimism, for hope, not fear.
In 1888, Israel Baline was born in a small village in Siberia. In 1893, his family fled from a brutal pogrom and made their way to New York City. The family of ten started in the United States with literally nothing. They all had to work to support themselves. It was a classic immigrant story. They worked hard, learned English and eventually prospered in a country that didn’t give them an easy life, but gave them freedom and safety. Israel’s father died and so Israel went to work to support his family. He started out selling songs and eventually he rose through the ranks to become an incredibly successful and prosperous songwriter.
During another dark time in our history, he penned these lines:
“While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.”
A few years into his new life here, Isaiah Baline changed his name to Irving Berlin. He knew a thing or two about storm clouds gathering in other lands, and having living through world wars and depressions, he knew about God guiding us through “the night with a light from above.”
Irving Berlin wrote with the feeling of an immigrant who fled his home to escape being persecuted and killed and with the feeling of someone who came to this country with nothing and climbed to the top of his profession. He knew what he was writing about.
God has blessed America. Many, many times. And surely, if we ask, He will continue to do so.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Recessions, Sprawl, Homeowners and the Left: Part 2
Well, our post yesterday elicited three comments within a 45 minute period! This is quite a record here at the RC and we are elated. It normally takes roughly three weeks to get that many comments!
Picking up on that same post, the RC today wants to discuss one of the key points in the article that was cited.
Some economists (such as the execrable Paul Krugman) feel that the recession was caused by greedy middle and lower class folks who wanted homes of their own. Imagine that. Wanting a home of your own. Tsk, tsk.
If the RC understands the argument correctly, they are not just talking about people who couldn’t afford homes and got them anyway. No, they are talking about the idea that most of us aspire to have a home of our own.
This, they say, is bad. It causes banks to lend us money and then we and the banks make bad choices, which led to the recession.
For now, the RC will overlook the point that the government forced banks to lend money to people with no jobs and no credit, which created the toxic loans. The banks did not do this on their own.
But let’s leave all that behind and accept their premise. For the sake of argument, let’s acknowledge that the economy would somehow be better off if fewer of us owned homes and more of us lived in cinderblock sardine tins in New York City.
If that were the case, then the RC is compelled to ask: what good is a strong economy, then? I mean, the reason the RC wants the economy to be strong is so he can have a job and make a decent living and provide a good life for his family. The RC is not really all that interested in a good economy merely for the sake of a good economy. In fact, the RC could really care less about the economy except to the extent that it effects the lives of real people, especially real people he knows.
The RC really doesn’t care, and he imagines most people agree, what GDP and trade and deficits and 2nd quarter growth numbers and price-earning ratios are if they don’t benefit real people and make their lives better.
So, if giving up a decent lifestyle will help the economy, then the RC sees no reason why a good economy is all that important or desirable. If it will only benefit a few rich folks (who often seem to be the ones who want to control the rest of us) then count him out!
An economy is not a museum piece or an independent work of art to be stared at and admired by a few educated elites. The economy is not an end in and of itself. The economy is means to an end and that end is this: to provide individuals and families with better lives. And for many of us that includes a house of one's own.
Picking up on that same post, the RC today wants to discuss one of the key points in the article that was cited.
Some economists (such as the execrable Paul Krugman) feel that the recession was caused by greedy middle and lower class folks who wanted homes of their own. Imagine that. Wanting a home of your own. Tsk, tsk.
If the RC understands the argument correctly, they are not just talking about people who couldn’t afford homes and got them anyway. No, they are talking about the idea that most of us aspire to have a home of our own.
This, they say, is bad. It causes banks to lend us money and then we and the banks make bad choices, which led to the recession.
For now, the RC will overlook the point that the government forced banks to lend money to people with no jobs and no credit, which created the toxic loans. The banks did not do this on their own.
But let’s leave all that behind and accept their premise. For the sake of argument, let’s acknowledge that the economy would somehow be better off if fewer of us owned homes and more of us lived in cinderblock sardine tins in New York City.
If that were the case, then the RC is compelled to ask: what good is a strong economy, then? I mean, the reason the RC wants the economy to be strong is so he can have a job and make a decent living and provide a good life for his family. The RC is not really all that interested in a good economy merely for the sake of a good economy. In fact, the RC could really care less about the economy except to the extent that it effects the lives of real people, especially real people he knows.
The RC really doesn’t care, and he imagines most people agree, what GDP and trade and deficits and 2nd quarter growth numbers and price-earning ratios are if they don’t benefit real people and make their lives better.
So, if giving up a decent lifestyle will help the economy, then the RC sees no reason why a good economy is all that important or desirable. If it will only benefit a few rich folks (who often seem to be the ones who want to control the rest of us) then count him out!
An economy is not a museum piece or an independent work of art to be stared at and admired by a few educated elites. The economy is not an end in and of itself. The economy is means to an end and that end is this: to provide individuals and families with better lives. And for many of us that includes a house of one's own.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Recessions, Sprawl, Homeowners and the Left: Part 1
(Editor's Note: This piece has been changed slightly since being first posted)
According to this very interesting article, some Leftish thinkers are blaming the recession on individual homeowners. You ought to read the article, but the gist of it is that the desire to own a home, and the fact that it is part of the American Dream, led banks to make bad decisions, which led to all the excesses that caused the Great Recession. And, beyond that, individual home ownership is bad because it makes living in high-density urban areas seem unappealing. Which means people leave cities as soon as they can and move to suburbs. And that is bad.
You see, they believe that if we all just lived in tightly-crammed apartments in cities, then we could all ride the bus or walk to work and there would be less pollution. Our Energy Secretary also thinks it would be great because lots of people in a small apartment would keep it warmer which would save money on heating bills. Since Secretary Chu is much smarter than the RC, the RC must assume he also has a plan to keep things cooler in the summer in the middle of all that concrete, asphalt, and body heat.
These folks would really like there to be less sprawl. Sprawl is a word progressives use often. It means: "homes and neighborhoods outside of decaying cities where families can live in a reasonable degree of privacy, autonomy and security."
So, if these folks get their way, this is the future: more of us crammed more tightly into urban areas. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it?
The RC has a few thoughts about this liberal utopia because it seems to him that this one issue neatly captures a whole lot of the progressive agenda
First of all, it seems to the RC that there is something about people having freedom and choices that drives progressive/liberal/leftists of all persuasions crazy. The first President Bush paraphrased H. L. Mencken's quote that a puritan is someone who can't sleep at night worrying that somehow someone somewhere is having a good time.
It’s like that with progressives. The fact that someone somewhere is going to choose to do something they don’t like, something of which they don't approve is like an itch in the middle of their back they can’t reach. It keeps them awake at night and it incites them to madness.
To be sure, they don’t say that it’s a matter of not liking choices people make. And possibly they don’t even realize that themselves. Rather, they find specific operational objections to cite, for example, they say they don’t want you to drive a car to work because of global warming; they say they don’t want you and your doctor to choose your healthcare because it’s wasteful and inefficient; they say they don’t want you to eat out at McDonald's because it will make you fat which is unhealthy. The list goes on and on but underneath these specific reasons, there seems to be a consistent philosophy: "We, the enlightened, the educated, the intelligent--we will choose for you."
If you scratch beneath the surface deeply enough you realize that many on the Left just have a fundamental mistrust of people and doesn’t like the choices that they make. Thus, there is an elemental desire to control, compel and regulate every aspect of life.
More later.
According to this very interesting article, some Leftish thinkers are blaming the recession on individual homeowners. You ought to read the article, but the gist of it is that the desire to own a home, and the fact that it is part of the American Dream, led banks to make bad decisions, which led to all the excesses that caused the Great Recession. And, beyond that, individual home ownership is bad because it makes living in high-density urban areas seem unappealing. Which means people leave cities as soon as they can and move to suburbs. And that is bad.
You see, they believe that if we all just lived in tightly-crammed apartments in cities, then we could all ride the bus or walk to work and there would be less pollution. Our Energy Secretary also thinks it would be great because lots of people in a small apartment would keep it warmer which would save money on heating bills. Since Secretary Chu is much smarter than the RC, the RC must assume he also has a plan to keep things cooler in the summer in the middle of all that concrete, asphalt, and body heat.
These folks would really like there to be less sprawl. Sprawl is a word progressives use often. It means: "homes and neighborhoods outside of decaying cities where families can live in a reasonable degree of privacy, autonomy and security."
So, if these folks get their way, this is the future: more of us crammed more tightly into urban areas. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it?
The RC has a few thoughts about this liberal utopia because it seems to him that this one issue neatly captures a whole lot of the progressive agenda
First of all, it seems to the RC that there is something about people having freedom and choices that drives progressive/liberal/leftists of all persuasions crazy. The first President Bush paraphrased H. L. Mencken's quote that a puritan is someone who can't sleep at night worrying that somehow someone somewhere is having a good time.
It’s like that with progressives. The fact that someone somewhere is going to choose to do something they don’t like, something of which they don't approve is like an itch in the middle of their back they can’t reach. It keeps them awake at night and it incites them to madness.
To be sure, they don’t say that it’s a matter of not liking choices people make. And possibly they don’t even realize that themselves. Rather, they find specific operational objections to cite, for example, they say they don’t want you to drive a car to work because of global warming; they say they don’t want you and your doctor to choose your healthcare because it’s wasteful and inefficient; they say they don’t want you to eat out at McDonald's because it will make you fat which is unhealthy. The list goes on and on but underneath these specific reasons, there seems to be a consistent philosophy: "We, the enlightened, the educated, the intelligent--we will choose for you."
If you scratch beneath the surface deeply enough you realize that many on the Left just have a fundamental mistrust of people and doesn’t like the choices that they make. Thus, there is an elemental desire to control, compel and regulate every aspect of life.
More later.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Governor Sanford: Resign!
One of the things that RC values above all else (at least in the realm of discourse) is intellectual honesty and consistency. Since the RC values that in others and wishes he saw more of it, he feels compelled to strive to demonstrate those same ideals.
So, in that spirit, and not because he thinks it will make any difference at all, the RC is compelled to say: "Governor Sanford, resign!"
Sir, you have disgraced your office and embarrassed your family. You are now a media freak-show and are a huge distraction from the enormous and dangerous changes the President and a Democratic congress are trying to push through. You allow the Left to say, "See, all those religious conservatives are just hypocrites."
On a human level I feel truly sorry for you. I don't judge or condemn you. But please, for the good of your state, the Republican party, and most of all, your family, please, please leave. Now.
Beyond the fact that you broke your most serious vows, the fact that you were AWOL and incommunicado for several days is irresponsible and leaves serious questions about your judgment.
So, in that spirit, and not because he thinks it will make any difference at all, the RC is compelled to say: "Governor Sanford, resign!"
Sir, you have disgraced your office and embarrassed your family. You are now a media freak-show and are a huge distraction from the enormous and dangerous changes the President and a Democratic congress are trying to push through. You allow the Left to say, "See, all those religious conservatives are just hypocrites."
On a human level I feel truly sorry for you. I don't judge or condemn you. But please, for the good of your state, the Republican party, and most of all, your family, please, please leave. Now.
Beyond the fact that you broke your most serious vows, the fact that you were AWOL and incommunicado for several days is irresponsible and leaves serious questions about your judgment.
Friday, June 26, 2009
More fun with government healthcare
Read this story. In sum, the VA sort of, well, basically just overlooked the fact that the endoscopes they were using were not being sterilized. So, people were getting colonoscopies, as well as having procedures in their noses and throats with unsterilized endoscopes.
The RC does not wish to be indelicate, but this means that people were getting colonoscopies and nose and throat procedures with the same endoscopes that had been in other people's colons, noses, and throats. And they hadn't been sterilized.
But the VA is really sorry about it.
Some of these people may now have HIV and Hepatitis because of this.
This shows two reasons why none of us should want the government involved in our healthcare.
First of all is the fact that large government operations like the VA just do a bad job. They are inefficient and sloppy--so they overlook tiny details like sterilizing this kind of equipment.
But beyond that, when mistakes happen, there is very little recourse.
Set aside the tiny odds that this would have happened at a private facility and imagine that it did. If this had happened at a private hospital or doctor's office, the victims of such mind-numbing idiocy could sue for damages and at least live a reasonably comfortable life based on the proceeds.
But now they get nothing. The leaders of the VA got a tongue lashing at a Congressional hearing, but if you have HIV I'm thinking that is fairly cold comfort.
The RC does not wish to be indelicate, but this means that people were getting colonoscopies and nose and throat procedures with the same endoscopes that had been in other people's colons, noses, and throats. And they hadn't been sterilized.
But the VA is really sorry about it.
Some of these people may now have HIV and Hepatitis because of this.
This shows two reasons why none of us should want the government involved in our healthcare.
First of all is the fact that large government operations like the VA just do a bad job. They are inefficient and sloppy--so they overlook tiny details like sterilizing this kind of equipment.
But beyond that, when mistakes happen, there is very little recourse.
Set aside the tiny odds that this would have happened at a private facility and imagine that it did. If this had happened at a private hospital or doctor's office, the victims of such mind-numbing idiocy could sue for damages and at least live a reasonably comfortable life based on the proceeds.
But now they get nothing. The leaders of the VA got a tongue lashing at a Congressional hearing, but if you have HIV I'm thinking that is fairly cold comfort.
Friday, June 12, 2009
This is serious!
Ok, you need to check this link out. The Brookings Institution, hardly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy calculates that if the Waxman-Markey Climate bill is made law it will add cost 9 TRILLION, yes TRILLION dollars. This will, obviously, have a significant effect on our economy.
This is all because of the cap-and-trade policy that the bill would make law. Because this is designed to make us use less power, the cost of that power will go way up (I've read estimates of between 40 to 90%) and with that, any product that uses power in its manufacture, production, or distribution. In other words, just about everything.
Call your congressman or woman today and tell them NO on Waxman-Markey!!!!!!
This is all because of the cap-and-trade policy that the bill would make law. Because this is designed to make us use less power, the cost of that power will go way up (I've read estimates of between 40 to 90%) and with that, any product that uses power in its manufacture, production, or distribution. In other words, just about everything.
Call your congressman or woman today and tell them NO on Waxman-Markey!!!!!!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Obama's Date with Broadway
Well, there’s been a bit of a flap lately about President Obama taking Mrs. Obama to go see a play on Broadway. The RNC is condemning this action and so there has been a minor flap.
It seems to me that this is really a non-issue. I am not a fan of the President. I think he is destroying our country’s present and future, either because he’s misguided or malicious. But you know, if he wants to go with is wife to see a play, so what? Yes, it was at taxpayer expense, and I suppose with all the money he made on his book it would be good of him to repay that to the treasury. But the truth is that pretty much everything the President (any of them) does is at taxpayer expense.
I feel compelled to point out the obvious: he doesn’t have the option of jumping into a passenger jet, flying to NYC, and then taking a cab from LaGuardia. That’s not realistic. Because of security and protocol, there is only one way for him to travel. Does this mean that he needs to be a hermit and never go anywhere or do anything?
Now, President Clinton abused this, I think. He went to NYC all the time and would close down major thoroughfares for hours. This was routine. I think that’s a problem. But come on, going out on a date once in a while?
It seems to me that the RNC is extremely tone-deaf. This is going to make them look like bullies. As soon as they picked this fight they lost. And they deserve to.
One thing that does grate though, is how agog the press is that the President and First Lady went on a date. It's gross. The press need to get lives. Also, they are rankly hypocritical. Can you imagine the outrage and indignation had the Bushes done something like this? Spittle would have been flying from the mouths of wild-eyed reporters as scowling anchors solemnly compared this to Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. That is annoying. But that's not the Obama's fault.
Mr. President: I hope you enjoyed your date. More power to you.
Ok, now can we get back to all the stuff that we should be criticizing: the bajillion dollar stimulus/piñata for left-wing groups, the green economy boondoggle, appointing judges who think law is made in appellate courts, and the attempt to bring the efficiency and sensitivity of the DMV and post office into our health care system?
It seems to me that this is really a non-issue. I am not a fan of the President. I think he is destroying our country’s present and future, either because he’s misguided or malicious. But you know, if he wants to go with is wife to see a play, so what? Yes, it was at taxpayer expense, and I suppose with all the money he made on his book it would be good of him to repay that to the treasury. But the truth is that pretty much everything the President (any of them) does is at taxpayer expense.
I feel compelled to point out the obvious: he doesn’t have the option of jumping into a passenger jet, flying to NYC, and then taking a cab from LaGuardia. That’s not realistic. Because of security and protocol, there is only one way for him to travel. Does this mean that he needs to be a hermit and never go anywhere or do anything?
Now, President Clinton abused this, I think. He went to NYC all the time and would close down major thoroughfares for hours. This was routine. I think that’s a problem. But come on, going out on a date once in a while?
It seems to me that the RNC is extremely tone-deaf. This is going to make them look like bullies. As soon as they picked this fight they lost. And they deserve to.
One thing that does grate though, is how agog the press is that the President and First Lady went on a date. It's gross. The press need to get lives. Also, they are rankly hypocritical. Can you imagine the outrage and indignation had the Bushes done something like this? Spittle would have been flying from the mouths of wild-eyed reporters as scowling anchors solemnly compared this to Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. That is annoying. But that's not the Obama's fault.
Mr. President: I hope you enjoyed your date. More power to you.
Ok, now can we get back to all the stuff that we should be criticizing: the bajillion dollar stimulus/piñata for left-wing groups, the green economy boondoggle, appointing judges who think law is made in appellate courts, and the attempt to bring the efficiency and sensitivity of the DMV and post office into our health care system?
Reprehensible
I have been busy with lots of real-life stuff lately so I haven’t been able to follow the news much, which means I have had very little to say about anything. But I just heard about the murder of the doctor who performed abortions.
I just want to say that I think this is a terrible thing. It is murder and it is wrong. Beyond being morally wrong, it is a dangerous for all of us. To the extent that we, as a country, live within the law we are reasonably safe. To the extent we slip away from that, any of us is in danger.
I think that it is really important for people who oppose abortion to be clear about this and to disassociate ourselves from people who do terrible things. Whether you are killing an adult or a baby, murder is wrong and ugly.
I just want to say that I think this is a terrible thing. It is murder and it is wrong. Beyond being morally wrong, it is a dangerous for all of us. To the extent that we, as a country, live within the law we are reasonably safe. To the extent we slip away from that, any of us is in danger.
I think that it is really important for people who oppose abortion to be clear about this and to disassociate ourselves from people who do terrible things. Whether you are killing an adult or a baby, murder is wrong and ugly.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
On Soccer Games and SCOTUS
Every spring and fall I spend a lot of time at the soccer fields watching my offspring participate in this delightful vernal/autumnal suburban ritual. I've never been all that deeply invested in the athletics my children play. By that I mean that I am glad they have the opportunity to play and it's fun to watch them but I don't really care about the outcome.
Even at the six- and seven-year-old level it's amazing how intense it gets. Parents, players, and coaches, especially get pretty invested and heated sometimes. Even I, who am pretty apathetic about sports, find myself getting caught up in the heat of the moment. I have an investment and I have an interest in the outcome.
Granted, the stakes of a little league soccer game are not all that high. If someone wins, or loses, it doesn't really have much of an impact on their life.
Even so, it is important that the game is played fairly, important that there are clear rules that apply to all the players and that these rules are adhered to by all. It's also important that there is someone who can enforce these rules on all sides.
Since this enforcer has the ability to change the outcome of the game, there are a few qualities I want in the referee. I want someone who knows how it feels to try to make a goal and miss it. I want someone who has empathy for the kid who can't run as fast. I want someone who appreciates what it feels like for a goalie to miss and let the goal in. I want someone who had a mean coach when he was younger. I want someone who is empathetic, compassionate, and who feels strongly that he should use his position to make life better for the soccer players. Someone who can see beyond limiting rules and is willing to use their life experience to change a rule if it's working against someone or if a team is having a hard time because of that rule. I want a ref who is not afraid to even things and out and level the playing field. If one team is winning by too large a margin, then the ref ought to be able to make the losing team's goals count double or triple. Or quadruple. Or the ref ought to be able to minimize players on the winning team. Or add players to the losing team. Or both. Really, whatever they want, whatever they think. Especially, whatever they feel is right. This is the only just way to play soccer.
I mean, the rules were made a long time ago by whom? A bunch of adults who don't really know what impact their rules might have on real kids in the middle of a game. The rules are guidelines but ought not be followed blindly. Some of the rules aren't fair so the ref ought to be able to change them.
Yep, others might want a ref who is impartial, eagle-eyed, and knows the rules back and forth, who is consistent in applying the rules equally for everyone. Not me. That's why I think it's just great that President Obama has announced that in looking for a new Supreme Court justice, he wants someone with empathy and understanding of people's life experiences and challenges. Because it is as important and just as relevant for the Supreme Court to rule based on how people feel as it is for that ref to take into account how my child feels if his team is losing. Right? I mean, if my kid's team is being clobbered by the other team, and my kid's team is a lot shorter or slower, or if it's really hurtful to be losing, shouldn't the ref step in?
One other thought. I want a ref who isn't limited by the rules our league uses. Rather, I want one who is willing to consult with the rules set by other leagues and other refs. How do we know our league has the best rules? It should all be at the ref's discretion, really. We should trust that he or she knows best and just sit back enjoy the game.
Even at the six- and seven-year-old level it's amazing how intense it gets. Parents, players, and coaches, especially get pretty invested and heated sometimes. Even I, who am pretty apathetic about sports, find myself getting caught up in the heat of the moment. I have an investment and I have an interest in the outcome.
Granted, the stakes of a little league soccer game are not all that high. If someone wins, or loses, it doesn't really have much of an impact on their life.
Even so, it is important that the game is played fairly, important that there are clear rules that apply to all the players and that these rules are adhered to by all. It's also important that there is someone who can enforce these rules on all sides.
Since this enforcer has the ability to change the outcome of the game, there are a few qualities I want in the referee. I want someone who knows how it feels to try to make a goal and miss it. I want someone who has empathy for the kid who can't run as fast. I want someone who appreciates what it feels like for a goalie to miss and let the goal in. I want someone who had a mean coach when he was younger. I want someone who is empathetic, compassionate, and who feels strongly that he should use his position to make life better for the soccer players. Someone who can see beyond limiting rules and is willing to use their life experience to change a rule if it's working against someone or if a team is having a hard time because of that rule. I want a ref who is not afraid to even things and out and level the playing field. If one team is winning by too large a margin, then the ref ought to be able to make the losing team's goals count double or triple. Or quadruple. Or the ref ought to be able to minimize players on the winning team. Or add players to the losing team. Or both. Really, whatever they want, whatever they think. Especially, whatever they feel is right. This is the only just way to play soccer.
I mean, the rules were made a long time ago by whom? A bunch of adults who don't really know what impact their rules might have on real kids in the middle of a game. The rules are guidelines but ought not be followed blindly. Some of the rules aren't fair so the ref ought to be able to change them.
Yep, others might want a ref who is impartial, eagle-eyed, and knows the rules back and forth, who is consistent in applying the rules equally for everyone. Not me. That's why I think it's just great that President Obama has announced that in looking for a new Supreme Court justice, he wants someone with empathy and understanding of people's life experiences and challenges. Because it is as important and just as relevant for the Supreme Court to rule based on how people feel as it is for that ref to take into account how my child feels if his team is losing. Right? I mean, if my kid's team is being clobbered by the other team, and my kid's team is a lot shorter or slower, or if it's really hurtful to be losing, shouldn't the ref step in?
One other thought. I want a ref who isn't limited by the rules our league uses. Rather, I want one who is willing to consult with the rules set by other leagues and other refs. How do we know our league has the best rules? It should all be at the ref's discretion, really. We should trust that he or she knows best and just sit back enjoy the game.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Public vs. Private
So, I’ve been thinking a lot about something lately. I don’t pretend that this is a new insight and others have articulated it much better than I can, but I think it is worth repeating and pondering anew given the direction that the current administration seems to be moving with centralized, government oversight and control.
Today I had to go UPS to mail a package. It took me about two minutes to do what I needed to do including getting the mailer, the label, and paying. There was no wait. At the United States Postal Service, just down the street, I regularly wait for at least twenty minutes, regardless of the time of day.
I don’t mean to criticize the post office, they actually do a good job moving all the mail in an efficient way. But I can’t help think about the difference. The private company seems faster and more responsive.
Think of the last time you went to a gas station or an ATM. You just assumed that the machinery would work, right? And it probably did. Not a big deal. Barring unusual circumstances, you probably didn’t have to wait in a long line and were in and out in a few minutes.
Now think of the last time you went to the DMV or somewhere like that. If you were lucky, you got in and out in less than an hour, but that would be really unusual in my experience.
I had to go get a birth certificate copy last year and went to a state office. It took quite a long time and required a great deal of waiting. There was no parking, either, so it took me several hours all told. To get a piece of paper printed.
Why can I go to McDonald’s with my whole family and be in and out in under five minutes?
In the course of my church work, I have frequently had to go to two hospitals. They are right next to each other. One is a university hospital and the other is the VA. It is amazing the difference between the two. The VA is grim and dreary. It always seems dim and dark. There is never anyone there to help you find rooms. The patients seem to be totally isolated and on their own. The whole experience feels like living in Kansas in the first part of The Wizard of Oz—it’s dark and gray. There is an almost palpable feeling of despair and dreariness in the air.
The other hospital, across the street is exactly opposite. It is bright and airy. There are receptionists and others to help you. The décor is pleasant and inviting. Patients call for a nurse and don’t wait for a small eternity.
The difference is pretty clear to me. Public operations, no matter how well intentioned just don’t work as well as private ones. I am open to correction on this if I am missing something that the government runs that works really well.
Today I had to go UPS to mail a package. It took me about two minutes to do what I needed to do including getting the mailer, the label, and paying. There was no wait. At the United States Postal Service, just down the street, I regularly wait for at least twenty minutes, regardless of the time of day.
I don’t mean to criticize the post office, they actually do a good job moving all the mail in an efficient way. But I can’t help think about the difference. The private company seems faster and more responsive.
Think of the last time you went to a gas station or an ATM. You just assumed that the machinery would work, right? And it probably did. Not a big deal. Barring unusual circumstances, you probably didn’t have to wait in a long line and were in and out in a few minutes.
Now think of the last time you went to the DMV or somewhere like that. If you were lucky, you got in and out in less than an hour, but that would be really unusual in my experience.
I had to go get a birth certificate copy last year and went to a state office. It took quite a long time and required a great deal of waiting. There was no parking, either, so it took me several hours all told. To get a piece of paper printed.
Why can I go to McDonald’s with my whole family and be in and out in under five minutes?
In the course of my church work, I have frequently had to go to two hospitals. They are right next to each other. One is a university hospital and the other is the VA. It is amazing the difference between the two. The VA is grim and dreary. It always seems dim and dark. There is never anyone there to help you find rooms. The patients seem to be totally isolated and on their own. The whole experience feels like living in Kansas in the first part of The Wizard of Oz—it’s dark and gray. There is an almost palpable feeling of despair and dreariness in the air.
The other hospital, across the street is exactly opposite. It is bright and airy. There are receptionists and others to help you. The décor is pleasant and inviting. Patients call for a nurse and don’t wait for a small eternity.
The difference is pretty clear to me. Public operations, no matter how well intentioned just don’t work as well as private ones. I am open to correction on this if I am missing something that the government runs that works really well.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Last One Out, Turn the Lights Back On
Well, in case you have been living in a cave (which seems to be the ultimate goal of some), you know that it is coming up on Earth Day. In a burst of goodwill, our school is having Green Week. Each day there is a different theme. Yesterday we were supposed to not produce trash, Monday we planted trees, and so on. Today is Light’s Out Day. Rooms that have windows are supposed to keep their lights off and in places like the hall where this is not possible, they have turned out all but one bank of lights.
Ok fine and good. I actually wash my water bottle out every day instead of using a new one. I recycle and so on. I think these are good ideas and that it just makes sense to do them.
I also think it is a good idea not to waste electricity and at my own house, I am always walking around turning lights out, both as a cost-saving measure as well as to not be wasteful.
But this is starting to go too far for me. First of all, I really have a visceral dislike of symbolic actions that make people feel virtuous. All these kids (and faculty, too) are feeling as if they are really doing something important by sitting in the dark during math class. I think that is just silly and question the long-term benefits that will come because of this. Will the kids change their habits? Probably not. Not to mention it gets in the way of doing work.
But here’s what really bugs me: here is a misanthropic undercurrent running through all of this. The message is that humans are bad for the earth and cause lots of problems. While this is undoubtedly true and we can do better, I don’t like that as a focus. Humanity has done some wonderful, wonderful things and we ought to celebrate them, not wallow in guilty self-abnegation.
Further, humanity has been struggling for thousands of years to come out of the elements, to make shelter and create amenities that would prolong and improve life. Turning our lights out just seems to go against the grand trajectory of the human endeavor.
Will we be the first generation in recent times to leave a less-developed, less-comfortable life to our children? A life in which simply having lights on in a classroom is considered morally suspect? Where virtue is defined as what our ancestors would have considered being uncivilized and unhygienic? And will we do it cheerfully and voluntarily, patting ourselves on the back and feeling virtuous about it?
Ok fine and good. I actually wash my water bottle out every day instead of using a new one. I recycle and so on. I think these are good ideas and that it just makes sense to do them.
I also think it is a good idea not to waste electricity and at my own house, I am always walking around turning lights out, both as a cost-saving measure as well as to not be wasteful.
But this is starting to go too far for me. First of all, I really have a visceral dislike of symbolic actions that make people feel virtuous. All these kids (and faculty, too) are feeling as if they are really doing something important by sitting in the dark during math class. I think that is just silly and question the long-term benefits that will come because of this. Will the kids change their habits? Probably not. Not to mention it gets in the way of doing work.
But here’s what really bugs me: here is a misanthropic undercurrent running through all of this. The message is that humans are bad for the earth and cause lots of problems. While this is undoubtedly true and we can do better, I don’t like that as a focus. Humanity has done some wonderful, wonderful things and we ought to celebrate them, not wallow in guilty self-abnegation.
Further, humanity has been struggling for thousands of years to come out of the elements, to make shelter and create amenities that would prolong and improve life. Turning our lights out just seems to go against the grand trajectory of the human endeavor.
Will we be the first generation in recent times to leave a less-developed, less-comfortable life to our children? A life in which simply having lights on in a classroom is considered morally suspect? Where virtue is defined as what our ancestors would have considered being uncivilized and unhygienic? And will we do it cheerfully and voluntarily, patting ourselves on the back and feeling virtuous about it?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
I Like Rich People
Some of you have already read this elsewhere, but I thought I'd post it here, too. I have a big work event tonight and have been out of town, so I don't have much else to say at the moment.
Today I just want to share a quick thought: I like rich people. I am not a rich person and frankly, given my profession, a music teacher, the odds are extremely small that I will ever be one (although, I would take it if it came along. But it probably won’t). Assuming that our economy doesn’t completely collapse and we don’t all end up living in either mud huts or gray cinder-block high-rises (circa East Germany in 1967), I will probably live and die in the lower portion of the middle-class and I have made my peace with that.
But still, I like rich people.
I wish that our culture and government weren’t becoming so anti-rich person. I like them. I think they are good. In fact, I think they are necessary.
Rich people, or at least people who make a good chunk of money (most of them are technically probably in the upper middle class), send their kids to the school at which I am employed. They want their children to be exposed to the arts, which is why my school employs me to teach these children music and theatre. Also, because I am an employee my children get to attend this school and get a first-rate education, even though we are not rich. My children are able to attend because the rich people pay a lot of money for tuition and a portion of all of their tuition goes to help pay for the cost of educating children who can't afford the full price of tuition. Beyond that, some rich people have donated money specifically to help poor people to attend the school. My children are not alone—there are a bunch of kids attending our school who, without the rich people, wouldn’t be able to be here. Some of them would be trapped in schools where their lives are physically in danger. But, because of the rich people, these kids have a chance out of their surroundings.
I like rich people because they tend to be generous, in my experience. Every year, at Christmas and at the end of the year I get gifts from them. Most of these gifts are gift cards and/or cash. I use these gift cards to go out to eat, to buy books and music, and do other things that I normally wouldn’t be able to do. This provides enjoyment for me, and it provides income for the people who work at those restaurants, bookstores, and so forth. They can then spend that income and this starts a wonderful chain that helps everyone out.
Also, some of these people decide that they would like their children to learn to sing or act. So, they pay me a fee to teach them, either though camps or private lessons. They also pay for their children to take piano lessons, dance lessons, martial arts lessons, horseback riding lessons, as well as paying to participate on various athletics teams. They pay coaches, tutors, and purchase equipment. Everyone of these people uses the money to buy things from someone else.
Now, I am just one person on the rich people’s financial radar. In addition to me, they pay for drycleaning, maid services, pool maintenance, home repairs, handyman services, catering and so on. Not to mention the clothes they buy, the gyms they go to, the hair styling they get. It goes on and on. And, I haven’t each mentioned charitable giving. The beauty of all this is that they do all this out of self-interest, without even trying to help people out. A lot of them do give substantial sums to charity. But even if they don’t share any of intentionally to be nice, they actually spread quite a bit of it around.
So, I think rich people are pretty great. They are already doing a lot. I think we should let them keep more of what they make so they can keep spending it. I would rather be able to work for them and earn my money than have the government take it from them and parcel it out to me. That is my preference for several reasons. First of all, I just think it’s the right thing from a moral perspective. But secondly, I don’t want to be dependent on the government to pay for my health care or education. I like working to earn it. It feels good. And, I don’t really trust them to do it right. But most of all, if you take that money away from the rich people and give it to poor people, won’t it eventually run out? I mean, it’s not a rapidly renewable resource, is it? It takes generations (usually) to accumulate wealth.
I remember when I was at college. It was cold and I had a thin, though adequate, coat. The president of the university, who was reputed to be quite wealthy, walked by me in a thick, long coat. He was walking to a campus eatery, probably to have a hot lunch. I had peanut butter and jelly. I was envious and I thought, “He ought to divide up his money and give it to everyone who goes to school so we can all have something nice.” Then it hit me how much my envy had clouded my thinking. If we were to do that—divide his money up—he would have to be fabulously, incredibly wealthy for it to make any difference at all in all of our lives. Most likely, it would affect him in a significantly bad way while not really making any substantive difference in our lives.
I remember the story of the goose that laid the golden egg. Remember the one where the goose laid a golden egg each day? Eventually, though, the people got greedy. They decided not to wait for the egg each day. They killed it and cut it open so they could get all the eggs out at once. That was great at the moment. But then the eggs stopped. For good. Isn’t that a little bit like what we are doing now?
Now, I know that some people who read this blog will agree with me because they already think this way. And, those of my dear friends who don’t agree with me will likely not change their minds when they read this. So I don’t expect anything to actually happen by posting this. But it feels good to say it.
Today I just want to share a quick thought: I like rich people. I am not a rich person and frankly, given my profession, a music teacher, the odds are extremely small that I will ever be one (although, I would take it if it came along. But it probably won’t). Assuming that our economy doesn’t completely collapse and we don’t all end up living in either mud huts or gray cinder-block high-rises (circa East Germany in 1967), I will probably live and die in the lower portion of the middle-class and I have made my peace with that.
But still, I like rich people.
I wish that our culture and government weren’t becoming so anti-rich person. I like them. I think they are good. In fact, I think they are necessary.
Rich people, or at least people who make a good chunk of money (most of them are technically probably in the upper middle class), send their kids to the school at which I am employed. They want their children to be exposed to the arts, which is why my school employs me to teach these children music and theatre. Also, because I am an employee my children get to attend this school and get a first-rate education, even though we are not rich. My children are able to attend because the rich people pay a lot of money for tuition and a portion of all of their tuition goes to help pay for the cost of educating children who can't afford the full price of tuition. Beyond that, some rich people have donated money specifically to help poor people to attend the school. My children are not alone—there are a bunch of kids attending our school who, without the rich people, wouldn’t be able to be here. Some of them would be trapped in schools where their lives are physically in danger. But, because of the rich people, these kids have a chance out of their surroundings.
I like rich people because they tend to be generous, in my experience. Every year, at Christmas and at the end of the year I get gifts from them. Most of these gifts are gift cards and/or cash. I use these gift cards to go out to eat, to buy books and music, and do other things that I normally wouldn’t be able to do. This provides enjoyment for me, and it provides income for the people who work at those restaurants, bookstores, and so forth. They can then spend that income and this starts a wonderful chain that helps everyone out.
Also, some of these people decide that they would like their children to learn to sing or act. So, they pay me a fee to teach them, either though camps or private lessons. They also pay for their children to take piano lessons, dance lessons, martial arts lessons, horseback riding lessons, as well as paying to participate on various athletics teams. They pay coaches, tutors, and purchase equipment. Everyone of these people uses the money to buy things from someone else.
Now, I am just one person on the rich people’s financial radar. In addition to me, they pay for drycleaning, maid services, pool maintenance, home repairs, handyman services, catering and so on. Not to mention the clothes they buy, the gyms they go to, the hair styling they get. It goes on and on. And, I haven’t each mentioned charitable giving. The beauty of all this is that they do all this out of self-interest, without even trying to help people out. A lot of them do give substantial sums to charity. But even if they don’t share any of intentionally to be nice, they actually spread quite a bit of it around.
So, I think rich people are pretty great. They are already doing a lot. I think we should let them keep more of what they make so they can keep spending it. I would rather be able to work for them and earn my money than have the government take it from them and parcel it out to me. That is my preference for several reasons. First of all, I just think it’s the right thing from a moral perspective. But secondly, I don’t want to be dependent on the government to pay for my health care or education. I like working to earn it. It feels good. And, I don’t really trust them to do it right. But most of all, if you take that money away from the rich people and give it to poor people, won’t it eventually run out? I mean, it’s not a rapidly renewable resource, is it? It takes generations (usually) to accumulate wealth.
I remember when I was at college. It was cold and I had a thin, though adequate, coat. The president of the university, who was reputed to be quite wealthy, walked by me in a thick, long coat. He was walking to a campus eatery, probably to have a hot lunch. I had peanut butter and jelly. I was envious and I thought, “He ought to divide up his money and give it to everyone who goes to school so we can all have something nice.” Then it hit me how much my envy had clouded my thinking. If we were to do that—divide his money up—he would have to be fabulously, incredibly wealthy for it to make any difference at all in all of our lives. Most likely, it would affect him in a significantly bad way while not really making any substantive difference in our lives.
I remember the story of the goose that laid the golden egg. Remember the one where the goose laid a golden egg each day? Eventually, though, the people got greedy. They decided not to wait for the egg each day. They killed it and cut it open so they could get all the eggs out at once. That was great at the moment. But then the eggs stopped. For good. Isn’t that a little bit like what we are doing now?
Now, I know that some people who read this blog will agree with me because they already think this way. And, those of my dear friends who don’t agree with me will likely not change their minds when they read this. So I don’t expect anything to actually happen by posting this. But it feels good to say it.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Reluctant Conservative
All my life, I’ve been in sort of a weird, in-between place in terms of politics. Except for a brief flirtation as a Limbaugh listener, when I was a fire-breather, I find myself in the position of being a reluctant conservative.
By that I mean that my political and religious convictions, as well as my own reading of history and understanding of current events, point me in a fairly conservative direction. I believe that government ought to be limited to a few essential functions and that it ought to do those few functions extremely well. I believe that human happiness is maximized—that more people will be more happy—if there is more freedom and less regulation in nearly everything. I have rarely had positive experiences at places like the Post Office or the DMV or other large government run beauracracies (new definition of Hell: trying to get process as a teacher by New York City’s Board of Education. Words don’t do justice to this onerous process…).
While I concede a lack of perfection and problems with traditional institutions, such as the free market, I don’t see how letting the same folks who run the DMV or the Post Office or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organize health care or plan for our energy usage is a good idea.
At any rate, minus my few embarrassing years as a crusader, I’ve always been pretty embarrassed by the fiery extremist sorts—folks like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, etc. I’m embarrassed by the fact that my views basically are similar to their’s—minus the sarcasm and bombast. Essentially, my convictions match the talk show line up, but my temperament is more towards the NPR side of things.
This makes for some difficult moments. During the Bush administration, I had basically morphed into a sort of non-partisan pragmatist.
But now, I feel like our country is falling apart. Everything—and I mean pretty much everything—that I have ever loved and valued about the United States seems to be at least on the endangered list.
And, everyone with whom I am temperamentally simpatico seems to think that this is a good thing and wants to hasten the change.
This leaves me with the yahoos that sort of appall me. And what’s worse, as I watch the country lurch towards government rationed health care (Dad! Hurry up and get your treatment for your cancer while it’s still allowed!), the increasing assumption of extra- and anti-Constitutional powers (ex post facto laws? Bah! Who cares. AIG execs are jerks. We can do whatever we want. Don’t you know we won?), an open attempt to boost my energy costs by 30%, the silencing of political opposition and stifling of dissent, and many, many more slimy and destructive things, I am left with a scary thought: My gosh! What if the yahoos were right all along! What if all their slippery slope stuff that I sort of was embarrassed by is really true?
So, this blog is my attempt to sort of work through this stuff. And, because if life in our country is going to change, I at least want to be part of the conversation—even if nothing changes because of what I say.
On thing—since I work in a fairly liberal field, I am going to keep this anonymous for now, so if you know my name, please keep it between us.
By that I mean that my political and religious convictions, as well as my own reading of history and understanding of current events, point me in a fairly conservative direction. I believe that government ought to be limited to a few essential functions and that it ought to do those few functions extremely well. I believe that human happiness is maximized—that more people will be more happy—if there is more freedom and less regulation in nearly everything. I have rarely had positive experiences at places like the Post Office or the DMV or other large government run beauracracies (new definition of Hell: trying to get process as a teacher by New York City’s Board of Education. Words don’t do justice to this onerous process…).
While I concede a lack of perfection and problems with traditional institutions, such as the free market, I don’t see how letting the same folks who run the DMV or the Post Office or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organize health care or plan for our energy usage is a good idea.
At any rate, minus my few embarrassing years as a crusader, I’ve always been pretty embarrassed by the fiery extremist sorts—folks like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, etc. I’m embarrassed by the fact that my views basically are similar to their’s—minus the sarcasm and bombast. Essentially, my convictions match the talk show line up, but my temperament is more towards the NPR side of things.
This makes for some difficult moments. During the Bush administration, I had basically morphed into a sort of non-partisan pragmatist.
But now, I feel like our country is falling apart. Everything—and I mean pretty much everything—that I have ever loved and valued about the United States seems to be at least on the endangered list.
And, everyone with whom I am temperamentally simpatico seems to think that this is a good thing and wants to hasten the change.
This leaves me with the yahoos that sort of appall me. And what’s worse, as I watch the country lurch towards government rationed health care (Dad! Hurry up and get your treatment for your cancer while it’s still allowed!), the increasing assumption of extra- and anti-Constitutional powers (ex post facto laws? Bah! Who cares. AIG execs are jerks. We can do whatever we want. Don’t you know we won?), an open attempt to boost my energy costs by 30%, the silencing of political opposition and stifling of dissent, and many, many more slimy and destructive things, I am left with a scary thought: My gosh! What if the yahoos were right all along! What if all their slippery slope stuff that I sort of was embarrassed by is really true?
So, this blog is my attempt to sort of work through this stuff. And, because if life in our country is going to change, I at least want to be part of the conversation—even if nothing changes because of what I say.
On thing—since I work in a fairly liberal field, I am going to keep this anonymous for now, so if you know my name, please keep it between us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)