Digestifier

Privatized Social Security & Elder Welfare

2010-09-11T13:43:00.000-04:00

It does not take a genius to realize that privatizing Social Security under any formula will result in the increased demand for welfare services for the aged when the generation with those privatized benefits is due to receive them. The nature of the stock market is such that some of those people will have failed in their investments and they will need help—more help than those who are receiving the standard Social Security benefit.

Some of those under the privatized option may do better; but others will do worse, and they will need welfare services which the government will have to supply if they are not to become a blight on those around them.

Not only that, privatization of Social Security invites wasting the investment of capital in our national welfare through the Social Security program, whatever its shortcomings. Let me illustrate by analogy.

The other day some of my family ate at the Grandview Buffet in the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh. Since we had not been there before, we walked through the casino section to see what it was like. None of us had ever been to it before, or used slot machines. My son saw a machine that took dollar bills and put in a $5 bill and began pushing buttons, which made the machine display different pictures and messages which did not really make much sense, except that eventually we figured the game was over. He wondered whether he should try again, but he decided against it since none of us knew how it worked.

For those who do not know what they are doing, privatization of Social Security will be the same thing: many people will not know how to manage accounts in the private market, although undoubtedly there will be many offers of assistance available to them. I cannot imagine a constitutionally valid way of barring individuals from claiming the right to manage their Social Security accounts if they are privatized; and the more they are warned about the dangers, the more some individuals may claim that right.

We have the right to fail and to become a burden on society. The purpose of Social Security is to be the end of the line in that process, at least to some extent. Privatizing Social Security would frustrate that intent and betray what the U.S. Constitution calls the federal government’s responsibility to promote the general welfare.

Want to Help? Serve with Care and Communication

2010-08-06T22:59:00.000-04:00

In what turned out to be his final gift to the world, Jean-Domnique Bauby relayed his impressions of and responses to hospital workers who were responsible for caring for him. Although only in his early 40’s, he suffered a stroke which left him totally paralyzed except for the ability to blink his left eye and slightly move his head back and forth. Since he had been the editor-in-chief of a major French magazine, a publisher arranged for a transcriber to decode and record his thoughts for the book we read in English as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. He died a few days after it was published about a year after the stroke. The book has also been made into an award-winning movie by the same title.

The book records an imaginative and rich inner life that the film only partly captures, though the film situates the story in its French setting which will greatly assist Americans reading the book, though it does seem to take some unexplained liberties.

In this post I want to highlight Bauby’s general comments about hospital staff. He makes particular comments here and there throughout the book, but the comments referred to here have had an effect on me because in them he struggles with his profound dependency on those who are being paid to help him.

We learn about ourselves when we encounter those in extreme need because it forces us to either face the possibility that we could someday be in the same position—or we may choose to ignore our feelings, in effect to suppress them. I work in a hospital; but I only occasionally remember that if I live long enough, I too, will one day be one of those unknown patients being pushed around in a wheelchair. This book has challenged me to question how I think about those who are unable to communicate normally.

I think Bauby has given his readers a gift. He has illustrated how hard it is to be in such great need, and how angry it makes a person. Yet he shows how forgiving a needy person can be in spite of that anger when we continue to act with even just a degree of care and responsibility. We do not have to be perfect and we can accept each other when we are far from perfect. Yet we can still aspire to do better!

Here are the key excerpts from the 1997 edition…

As the weeks go by, this forced solitude has allowed me to acquire a certain stoicism and to realize that the hospital staff are of two kinds: the majority, who would not dream of leaving the room without first attempting to decipher my SOS messages; and the less conscientious minority, who make their getaway pretending not to notice my distress signals. Like that heartless oaf who switched off the Bordeaux-Munich soccer game at halftime, saying "Good night!" with a finality that left no hope of appeal. (p. 40-41)

At first some of the staff had terrified me. I saw them only as my jailers, as accomplices in some awful plot. Later I hated some of them, those who wrenched my arm while putting me in my wheelchair, or left me all night long with the TV on, or let me lie in a painful position despite my protests. For a few minutes or a few hours I would cheerfully have killed them. Later still, as time cooled my fiercest rages, I got to know them better. They carried out as best they could their delicate mission: to ease our burden a little when our crosses bruised our shoulders too painfully. (p. 110)

…I realized that I was fond of all these torturers of mine. (p. 111)

Thank goodness it was BP!

2010-06-30T22:13:00.000-04:00

If the deep-water drilling accident that was bound to happen eventually had been caused by a smaller, less well-endowed oil company, the entire world would have been in a much greater mess.

As bad as the Gulf oil spill is, at least BP has the resources to commit to cleaning it up responsibly.

BP is taking a lot of the blame for what is really a systemic problem: Sure BP took cost-cutting risks—as would every oil company in a competitive climate. That is why we need government regulators to ensure that reasonable risk management precautions are carried out by every company, to not only ensure safety but also to ensure them that they all operate in an even playing field where the same rules apply to all.

What happened in the Gulf is that not only did BP cut some corners, which we can assume every other company also cuts to one degree or another; but the government also cut some regulatory corners and did not enforce the risk management protocols it should have.

Presumably getting the regulatory system back into operating order is why President Obama called for the six-month halt on deep-water drilling. The government needs to get its act together!

A disaster like this could happen again if the government does not do its job right, and we won’t be so lucky if next time the company involved is not as well-endowed as BP.

Thank goodness it happened to BP!

Do political moderates have a future?

2010-06-02T15:32:00.000-04:00

Americans want their leaders to cooperate with each other and work together — that means being willing to make reasonable compromises. George Bush first got into office largely on the promise that he was a “uniter not a divider.” Barack Obama followed with the similar theme to “bring everyone to the table.”

We all know how polarization has developed over the past decade or so. The assumption that the middle ground — political centrism — would appeal to the majority of voters is now being questioned. Perhaps there are just too many issues which people hold with idiosyncratic individuality as our pluralism becomes more deeply entrenched.

The Current Situation

David Brooks warns --

“…these days, the political center is a feckless shell. It has no governing philosophy. Its paragons are either nakedly opportunistic, like Arlen Specter, or caught in some wishy-washy middle, like Blanche Lincoln. The right and left have organized, but the center hasn't bothered to. The right and left have media outlets and think tanks, but the centrists are content to complain about polarization and go home. By their genteel passivity, moderates have ceded power to the extremes.” (Read more)

For a further discussion of this issue, you can view or read the weekly analysis of Shields & Brooks on the PBS NEWSHOUR for May 21, 2010: Shields and Brooks on Rand Paul Comments, Dangers of Centrism.

The way I read the situation however, borrowing David Brooks’ spectacles to view it, is that many of the true libertarians may be in the middle. They don’t organize into groups since their views are unique to themselves and perhaps their immediate subgroups. They vote according to their own principles as they understand them to best apply at the time of an election. They are not going to let political affiliation obligate them to a given party. But they may well have their own political philosophies.

The declining economy and shifts in the national political agenda have also left many voters angry and discontent. The way I see it, many of these independent swing voters may be uncommitted people whose beliefs will still be emerging and open to being influenced by those who take the time to engage them. They will likely be even more open to rational discourse if economic conditions improve. Whatever their individual situations, however, as more and more people disengage from formal affiliations with religious and political groups, in the long run, the undefined middle might be up for grabs.

When we think of this broader social context, we are reminded of the need to distinguish between what people believe constitutes a good society and want they expect from their political leaders. There may not always be a direct connection between these two factors any more.

Obama’s Centrist Leadership Style

I do think that President Obama has a somewhat defined centrist political philosophy, and that David Brooks has helped identify this. Brooks, however, seems to emphasize belief systems that might underlie centrism; but I think the leadership approach that produces the results that centrists seek is more important in focusing on centrism. Obama’s centrist style is easy to overlook. He has come onto the national scene so quickly in his political career that his approach has not had time to be properly introduced, nurtured to maturity, or fully appreciated by the public; and it may well be rejected before even its preliminary results are evaluated or it is fully articulated and rationally considered. But it may well be an approach with a future, especially if those on the extremes continue to fail to do anything but beat each other up and knock each other down time after time if we keep electing one extreme and then the other.

The president’s centrist approach was most clearly explained in the context of religious conflicts in his Call to Renewal speech in 2006; but in reality his leadership style throughout his life has exemplified this philosophy.

In this speech he presented his approach to political leadership under what I have summarized as three “rules” or principles as described below in a condensed form. I believe we see the president and his team regularly referring to these same concepts as they lead the country in every sphere of our national life — not only as they touch on religious concerns, although these principles were articulated in that context. These are not special principles for treating religion. This speech just elucidates how the religious area should be integrated into these broad principles which guide in governing the entire society. Remove the religious references and you have the basic principles of a centrist leadership philosophy.

Principle # 1 — FREE EXPRESSION: When people participate in public discussion and debate, they should be free to fully express their beliefs. Believers should be free to express their religious concerns. Likewise, those who do not identify themselves as religious should be free to express their beliefs as they see them.
Principle # 2 — COMPROMISE: Although both religious and non-religious viewpoints should be heard and discussed, the goal of public discussion is to establish common agreement on value judgments in order to obtain the broadest possible base for legal action in a pluralistic, democratic society.
Principle # 3 — GOOD WILL: Recognize the limits of the political process: accept that significant change comes slowly; speak fair-mindedly about the issues; presume the best from each other.

As David Brooks has noted, Obama has towed the line tenaciously in pursuing his centrist approach to political leadership, drawing attacks from both left and right.

As already noted, it is important to distinguish between a centrist leadership style and centrist political beliefs, though ultimately the lines between them may become blurry as compromises are defended. Obviously a politician’s beliefs will vary somewhere along a scale from left to right. Obama is generally recognized as being left of center, although a careful reading of these principles will have to acknowledge that they are actually quite conservative since they allow for the rate of social change to occur at a pace set by the level of participation by the members of society. If people push back at proposed changes, they will not occur because there will be compromises.

If enough people want to slow down a given agenda item, then they can do so by getting involved. But likewise, others can push back if they are so inclined to support proposed changes. Only by getting involved will the democratic leadership style envisioned by President Obama really work; and when it is working best it might well appear to be most stagnant at times because of all the involvement of people making their voices heard.

Angry involvement is not necessarily a bad thing; but it needs to be transformed by congressional leaders into compromises that will work for the benefit of their constituencies. If they have been delivering unrealistic messages to them, they will not be able to deliver. This is where the real Congressional gridlock begins, in the implied promises made by Congressional leaders to their constituencies, especially when they buy into the party line of the left and right think tanks that provide them with handy talking points. If they have left themselves no room for compromise, they are in no position to lead for the good of America.

There needs to be a lot more attention given to how congressional leaders are communicating with their constituencies. This may actually be where congressional gridlock begins!

Forecasting Future Trends

It is very difficult for social scientists to assess movements that are not organized in some way, and the desire of Americans to see a centrist politics operating for the good of America certainly has to rate as some kind of a movement even if it does ebb and flow, perhaps due to factors not directly related to politics. Despite all the anger and fear currently displayed in polls, I do not see any evidence that centrism in political leadership is dead. In fact, much of American anger is directed at Congress for not getting more accomplished. Congress is expected to lead, and this will entail compromise, even if it is done quietly so as not to offend too many sensibilities.

One has to wonder whether researchers have yet figured out a way to assess centrist voters to see what kind of sense they really do make. They might be surprised if they started to dig a little deeper!

Analyzing political leadership styles of political leaders and making them more widely known might lead us in a more profitable direction than we are currently heading. America has never clamored for leaders with moderate beliefs. We want leaders who are willing to forge workable compromises for the American people.

Obamacare at Last!

2010-04-17T21:23:00.004-04:00

The healthcare reform that many of us hoped for in the presidential elections of the 1990’s finally began to become a reality in 2010, just as babyboomers are begin to retire. If fear mongers do not prevail, the me generation will leave behind a legacy besides a memory of their Social Security and Medicare burden on the economy. Unfortunately, it is many of that me generation — my own — who are most upset about Obamacare because they fear it will reduce their own benefits. Let our children and their children fend for themselves!

As our nation adjusts to Obamacare — as it would with any seismic shift — the various elements in our vast social and economic system will gradually make the appropriate adjustments to the new arrangements and we will be better off for it. In the long run, just about any improvement will make our country better off than the inequities and shortcomings produced by our current system, where the top 10% of people receive almost 50% of the wages and where “U.S. households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution own well more than 80 percent of the nation's wealth,” an entirely unnatural circumstance that cannot be explained simply by claiming that those 10-20% worked harder than the rest of us. Furthermore, “Between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.”

There is no excuse why a nation as wealthy as ours cannot do a better job of healthcare. We probably have the best healthcare technology in the world; but we do not have the best system for delivering it equitably. We have neither the highest national standards of health nor the highest levels of health insurance coverage. Yet we are the wealthiest nation in the world. Something is very wrong with the way we have been doing things! The way things were done in the past cannot be our guide for the future.

Mostly what I hear when people complain about Obamacare is FEAR – What if this? What if that?

I have only heard arguments about potential costs that might possibly be valid (though in principle I can’t understand why we shouldn’t be willing to pay whatever it costs to do what is right); but these arguments are always met by opposing arguments and cannot be considered persuasive at this point since the actual cost of the Obamacare legislation has been calculated by the CBO to result in a net savings. What if we don’t adhere to the assumptions in the bill? FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!

There are also valid concerns about ever increasing bureaucracy since government programs tend to be self-aggrandizing. What if the Executive overextends his authority? What if Congress does not exercise proper oversight? FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!

Our constitution was born amidst all kinds of similar fears, fears about what might happen if one group or another were to take the nation in one undesirable direction or another; but they created our nation anyway. The only way to make progress is to act with the same kind of courage exemplified by the American founders.

What really gets me is that the Republicans violently resisted the public option of a government sponsored healthcare plan, which would have been the most effective approach to providing healthcare for any American who could not afford other plans — and now they now turn around and complain that the government does not have the right to require that all Americans obtain health insurance! They are making it look like they are determined to make sure that as many people as possible do NOT have healthcare coverage! Their just say no approach to virtually every Democratic proposal in Congress makes them look like the cause of our hamstrung government.

It looks to me like we need to get the public option clarified in Congress, which means we still need another strong Democratic majority at least one more time. This issue is not really over yet. And we don’t just need any Democrat in office. We need public option Democrats and we need this issue settled dramatically. Either that, or the Republicans are going to have to settle down and confirm the principle that we will require all Americans to obtain health insurance. This may well be the last chance the insurance industry has to clean up its act.

I’m no expert, but the way the US Constitution reads in plain English is,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility… promote the general welfare… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Article I, Section 1] All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. [Section 8] The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes… and provide for the… general welfare of the United States.

It seems obvious to me that requiring everyone to obtain health insurance falls within these guidelines. Congress has the right to legislate and tax for the general welfare of all US citizens. I don’t see how there can be serious debate about the ultimate legal outcome of this any legal challenge. Why do people want to waste taxpayer dollars on it? Why do taxpayers approve of such frivolous waste of their taxes?

Our nation can afford whatever we set our minds to paying for. Most of the money out there is just the result of subjective calculations. The value of the dollar is based on guesswork, not objective reality; but it creates objective realities. Economics is a mental construct. It consists of our self-reflection on our behavior, and as such allows us to adjust that behavior. That is why the stock market sways with every bit of news affecting it. But that is also why economic reflection involves moral choice; and it is why we can also decide to find a way to afford Obamacare if we want it, if we consider it a morally good thing..

Our own inner sense of shared moral responsibility for fellow human beings will decide whether we will embrace Obamacare. We already have decided that defending our fellow citizens with military action is worthwhile, which is why we have the best military in the world and have engaged in many wars and conflicts. Now we have to decide whether we are truly committed to protecting our investment with the best healthcare system in the world.

Obamacare is the first step towards what we should have been doing all along. It is the right thing to do.

Obamacare at last!

Healthcare Reform: Get it done!

2009-09-17T21:02:00.002-04:00

Pass major healthcare reform now! Carpe diem!

It is hard to keep this debate civil, and I only have a couple minutes to let months of double, double toil and trouble overflow with some semblance of sanity.

1. It is much easier to get your voice heard when you say I OBJECT or YOU LIE, but much more difficult when you just want your legislators to get major healthcare reform passed. All they have to go on from the public is stupid polls asking loaded questions such as “are you happy with your current healthcare?” – So, are you happy with the way costs keep going up and coverage keeps going down? Are you happy with the unpredictability of coverage? These questions are not covered by these simple-minded polls. I have very good medical insurance and I am not happy with it because of these factors. But if you ask me if I’m happy about my healthcare, how can I say no? You’ve heard about the three kinds of lies according to Mark Twain and Disraeli?

2. One of the biggest lies going around is that America has the best healthcare “system” in the world. This claim confuses the concept of technology with the concept of system. We might have the best technology overall (or perhaps some other component is claimed by those who make it?); but study after study shows that we do not have the best system by most counts. We spend more per person on healthcare for less benefit, and we allow far too many people to fall out of the healthcare system considering our great wealth. There is both a cost-benefit case against our system and a social justice case against our system. On these two broadly-inclusive measures it cannot accurately be claimed that we have the best healthcare system in the world.

3. Almost totally ignored in the current debate is the desirability of enabling American workers to become more competitive. Currently just about all social policies tie workers down to specific communities. If they lose their jobs, they cannot explore average paying jobs in other states or beyond their commuting range. Going past that limit would remove them from important social benefits including the most important one for families—healthcare. With healthcare tied only to jobs, workers with families are limited to jobs in their locale. In the past undocumented immigrants who had a home to go to if caught by the IRS were able to take the jobs these workers might have taken if something resembling universal healthcare had provided a security blanket. Who knows what changes are currently happening.

NPR’s dangerous idea

2009-06-04T22:01:00.003-04:00

NPR’s board is about to decide whether to ban sectarian religious programming from its member stations.

That this should even come up for a vote in a major media network in the free world is baffling.

Although NPR apparently wants its member stations to be not only non-commercial and non-political but also non-sectarian, in doing so they are creating a non-religious environment. Rather than welcoming varieties of religious expressions, they only want to peer at religion from the outside. They think they can have religion without having religions.

They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum consistently advocated by Barrack Obama since he first enunciated his three major principles for religion in the public sphere in his Call to Renewal speech back in 2006. I summarized these principles back then as follows—

Rule # 1: FREE EXPRESSION

Summary: When people participate in public discussion and debate, they should be free to fully express their beliefs. Believers should be free to express their religious concerns. Likewise, those who do not identify themselves as religious should be free to express their beliefs as they see them.

Rule # 2: COMPROMISE

Summary: Although both religious and non-religious viewpoints should be heard and discussed, the goal of public discussion is to establish common agreement on value judgments in order to obtain the broadest possible base for legal action in a pluralistic, democratic society.

Rule # 3: GOOD WILL

Summary: Recognize the limits of the political process: accept that significant change comes slowly; speak fair-mindedly about the issues; presume the best from each other.

NPR is now considering a direct contradiction of all three of these principles.

# 1: FREE EXPRESSION

NPR is considering denying its member stations the option of allowing local churches to buy time to broadcast services. It is basically saying that there is to be no free expression of religion on its member stations. This rule is not required by the government—it is self-imposed censorship. I guess it is up to supporters to decide what they think of this rule.

Apparently NPR is willing to allow other types of programming on its member stations. But religion is so controversial, so universal and deeply ingrained in people that it is like sex, difficult to control. Perhaps we could think of NPR as going through a Victorian stage, seeking to cover up religion, attempting to deny its pervasiveness and power except to provide objective reports with clinical detachment.

# 2: COMPROMISE

Apparently there are some problems that led to this issue being raised in the first place. I can only speak to my own station, WDUQ in Pittsburgh, which is owned by Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost (I put it that way because that is the source of your tax receipt for donations to NPR through WDUQ). Donating to NPR is donating to religion in Pittsburgh.

Although I very religious and I am a huge fan of NPR and I am not a supporter of across the board legalized abortion, I no longer support WDUQ because they returned a $5,000 donation from Planned Parenthood after initially accepting it because they felt it compromised their message. I do not believe this was justified; I had an amiable email dialogue with the university chancellor in which we clarified our views; and we have left it at that. My donation levels were very small and do not amount to anything significant anyway. Furthermore, I want Duquesne University to be free to exercise its religious viewpoints. And I want NPR to figure out a way to allow for freedom of religious broadcasting.

I also saw somewhere that NPR was considering allowing listeners to contribute directly to the main network, with perhaps a portion going back to the local station. That would be fine with me. And I would resume contributions in that way. One thing religious broadcasters have taught the political world beginning with Howard Dean through Barrack Obama is the power of small contributions coming from many people. Collecting donations centrally to counter-balance local conflicts might be a good compromise for others too. But NPR does not seem willing to take this step.

# 3: GOOD WILL

I have not seen any issue brief about this issue from NPR--only the statement that they are planning to vote. Perhaps they want input. But if they exclude serious God-talk from their member stations, then I think they are raising questions about their own good will. I think the onus will be on them to defend their actions. It’s an exceedingly small thing, but if they don’t provide a mighty good explanation if they vote to exclude religious programming, then NPR won’t appear on my Facebook page anymore.

From what I have seen so far, it looks to me like they just think it is a matter of their rules and regulations. That is not good enough for me. Organizational rules are driven by people’s values and beliefs.

Why do they think they need a rule to exclude sectarian religion from their member stations?

That is the question I want answered. This is a self imposed rule. Not imposed by the government.

But as upset as I am that they are even considering this question, I’m waiting to hear what they have to say.

Obama, Islam, and the Golden Rule

2009-05-20T23:03:00.004-04:00

Can you believe that some people have focused on President Obama’s use of the Golden Rule as evidence of an underlying natural law and used it to criticize him and to disparage Muslims?

You would think these are antichrists incognito since their purpose must surely be either to undermine belief in creation or to undermine the moral leadership of the president. There can only be a natural moral law — “the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together” — if there is no creator. Without a creator every apparent “law” is simply happenstance and depends on the perspective of the perceiver. That is why science can only claim to have verified hypotheses to varying degrees of certainty, but can never lay claim to absolute truth.

Those in the theistic traditions usually support the role of leaders in encouraging moral leadership, and most others also support them as well because it makes good sense.

But it is not the atheists that seem to be complaining about Obama’s use of the Golden Rule. It seems to be either disaffected Christians or right wing fundamentalists who argue that Obama shows that he does not understand Islam because Islam does not have a Golden Rule tradition. That was claimed again on a talk show on WPIT following the president’s Notre Dame speech.

Here is what President Obama actually said at the University of Notre Dame [highlights added]--

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities.

I’ve added the highlights because they show how Obama is defining his understanding of the Golden Rule. He understands and applies it in a very general and practical way, not in an interior and deeply spiritual manner. He is appealing to action and not to internal reflection. Neither is he defining it in a technical and rationalistic manner for a debate. He is sketching it for the moral imagination, much more like Jesus did than like the legalistic accusers then and now.

Obama’s remarks at Notre Dame are similar to those he made at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, where he was apparently more detailed concerning his reference to Islam.

A Jewish blogger gives the details but then goes on to rant, much of which is excluded here--

"We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together... In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” -- from Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast

Here is the Hadith in full and uncensored. -- "Abu Hamzah Anas bin Maalik who was the servant of the Messenger of Allaah reported that the Prophet said: "None of you truly believes (in Allah and in His religion) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."

While Obama might try to pass this off as the Golden Rule, the Hadith mentions "Brother", which means fellow Muslim. Infidels not included…. Mohammed's remarks as contained in this Hadith is limited strictly to Muslims.

Without even doing much research on the matter, it seems to me that until specialized knowledge is uncovered, it is reasonable to assume at least the following:

(1) Islam’s all-encompassing worldview of loving for one’s brother what one loves for oneself is no less incoherent than loving a God who plans to torture people forever if they reject him before they die. I put it that way because that is the way the doctrine of hell has been understood by many until quite recently, and perhaps still continues to be understood by many Christians. Let’s face it, the truth about worship is that you become like what you worship, and we will become like the God we worship. That is why the biblical God demands that we have no other Gods before him. My point here is not that Christians are becoming cruel because their doctrine of God proves it, but that if Christianity’s view of hell can change, then so also can Islam’s view of love. Islam is much more flexible than we outsiders give it credit for, and we should not demonize it.

(2) Islam does accept that Jesus was a legitimate prophet from God. It seems reasonable to assume therefore that they would accept his teaching of the Golden Rule. Why do Christians seem to think that Muslims can’t claim Jesus? After all, Christians claim Abraham, David, Jeremiah and Isaiah without claiming to be Jews. It is not legitimate to say Muslims do not have the Golden Rule in their tradition when they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet from God. They do believe many of the biblical manuscripts are corrupt, but some Christians and scholars also believe that.

Get off Bush’s Back and Create Public Service Banks

2009-04-14T21:09:00.001-04:00

True, President Bush’s policies snookered us. He allowed himself to be deceived about the need to start a war in Iraq that will cost us dearly for decades to come after he already committed to cutting taxes guaranteed to force us eventually either to reduce social programs or to face astronomical deficits. But most people wanted lower taxes now and, like the president, figured the future will take care of itself.

Now we face those astronomical deficits sooner rather than later because the skeleton in our closet was evicted and everyone recognizes it – we have been spending beyond our means at every level of society. We can’t blame this on President Bush. We have to solve this part of the economic crisis at a personal level right now.

And we find ourselves in a catch-22 situation at the very heart of the capitalist system. As President Obama says, if everyone stops spending, then there will be no demand for goods, and then ultimately no jobs, either.

But capitalism says we want to keep on spending more and more, always expanding to new horizons, never being satisfied with just having enough to meet our own needs. And that seems to be the fatal flaw in the system.

Companies on the stock market push for higher returns every year. And of course we all want that because we have 401(k) retirement plans invested there. These companies will even move out-of-state or out-of-country, dumping faithful employees to go where they can make a better profit so we can get higher returns on our investment.

And this is just the simple version. Reality is much more complex. Those people who earn those big salaries get paid big for their ability to create alternative realities with words and numbers. But all that really matters is what they produce. It reminds me of what Jesus said, that it’s not what goes into a person that defiles him, but what comes out of him! (Mark 7:15)

And what are they producing right now? It looks to me like they are starting to raise interest rates fairly high on credit cards, for one thing, charging rates far above prime even for customers with good payment records.

And they have tightened up credit beyond reasonable limits, even for the most credit-worthy customers.

Banks seem to be resisting the idea of making employee compensation more modest, yet they are putting the squeeze on the public. If you can’t keep your rates reasonable; then you should not be paying such high salaries.

Does this make sense?

It is time to stop blaming President Bush and start putting the focus on our own consumption habits and on our own banking industry, which is apparently not willing to voluntarily make its own cut-backs.

Its starting to look like the government needs to create a new set of laws for a new kind of banking industry to develop. As some have pointed out, the credit unions have been doing fine. It is the banks that are in trouble. Let the old banking system die away and let’s get a new one not built on ever expanding profit taking.

We need banks that are primarily a public service industry and not primarily profit making businesses.

The Tyranny of an Undisclosed Conscience

2009-01-05T21:20:00.000-05:00

Displacing professional standards by an undisclosed conscience can only result in tyranny – and other undesirable unintended consequences of a new Federal rule are also inevitable!

Beginning January 19, you can go to a hospital that says it provides family guidance services yet be denied legitimate healthcare information without your knowledge or consent simply because of the conscientious beliefs of the clinician serving you that day. For example, “for more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.” (Los Angeles Times, 12/2/08)

The BIG difference between the old and the new scenarios, as we will see below, is that when using a hospital that objects to certain services such as abortion, you used to know what to expect; but under this new rule you no longer know what to expect since what information you receive will depend on each clinician’s personal conscience. It really does NOT matter what the published literature of the hospital says anymore. The conscience of the individual clinician prevails in every case.

Since this is a federal rule, it trumps local laws:

Many states currently have laws requiring that rape victims treated in hospital emergency rooms be offered the option of taking emergency contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy. But she [president of Planned Parenthood] said that because providers who don't believe in emergency contraception could now simply opt not to tell women about that option, "under this rule, we believe that in fact now women who are the victim of sexual assault either would not be guaranteed either information or health care access to emergency contraception."(NPR, 1/3/09)

This rule has severe penalties:

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other way. (Washington Post , 12/19/08)

This rule extends to a wide network of healthcare workers:

The Bush administration announced its "conscience protection" rule for the healthcare industry Thursday, giving doctors, hospitals, and even receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable. (Los Angeles Times, 12/19/08)

The final rule, however, affects a far broader array of services, protecting [pharmacy] workers who do not wish to dispense birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraceptives and other forms of contraception they consider equivalent to abortion, or to inform patients where they might obtain such care…. While primarily aimed at doctors and nurses, it offers protection to anyone with a "reasonable" connection to objectionable care -- including ultrasound technicians, nurses aides, secretaries and even janitors who might have to clean equipment used in procedures they deem objectionable. (Washington Post, 12/19/08)

No More Basis for Trust

When you go to a healthcare organization such as a Catholic hospital that clearly states its ethical position, you know what to expect, and you know you will be served professionally within the bioethical beliefs of that organization. So, for example, they will not offer you abortion services, though they are required to offer alternative options.

Rules already are in place to protect any person, doctor or pharmacist from going against their conscience by providing abortion or contraception information or services to patients or clients. But current practice requires people to inform people that other options are available elsewhere. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/3/09)

As we have noted above, however, this new rule does not allow youto know you are not being denied certain services, which means you will not know what to expect. "The provider can deny information and services to their clients without their knowing it is being denied." (PittsburghPost-Gazette, 1/3/09)

You will be under the total control of each clinician’s conscience regardless of their ethnic or religious background, or even any misguided confusion of a partially developed or guilty conscience they may be experiencing at the moment. Some warn that “As written, the rule also would protect health care providers opposed to vaccinations or other medical procedures.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/3/09) It will take a long time to sort out because no one will know when it is being employed because clinicians who take advantage of it are not legally accountable for their actions. This rule does not require anything from them; rather, it permits them NOT to do what other laws, professional codes, and ethical codes DO require them to do. It is truly antinomian.

When I think how many healthcare organizations are turning over ever more of their clinical functions to nurses and much less educated providers; when I think how narrowly educated these specialized medical technicians are; and then when I think how the mass media has made almost all of us highly vulnerable to every wave of pop culture thinking and current fads, I wonder what kind of conscience we are turning our future medical care over to? Whatever the current movies are promoting? What kind of social strategizing does the Bush administration have in mind? Certainly not the good of the unborn – that is plain to see, since there have been no commensurate increases in social services to support the increased birth rate this rule is intended to accomplish.

This rule seems bound to create moral chaos. There is no basis for trusting one’s clinician since they legally do not have to tell you anything that offends their conscience. They are not compelled to give you as much respect as God gave Adam and Eve. They may even deny you your own right to refuse treatment by denying you the right to even know about it. If there ever was a place where the “house of cards” imagery applied, this is it. You can’t just say conscience takes priority in one clinical area but not in another. If it applies to bioethical issues, why should the underlying principle not also apply to alternative medicine, mental heath, and controversial medical treatments? It makes no sense to view this rule as limited in scope: the legal basis for justifying this one area must surely apply to other areas as well. But my bet is that the whole thing will collapse because it makes no practical sense.

Unintended Consequences?

No one can fully predict the legal implications of this rule if it stays in place since it supersedes other related laws and seems to sanction a kind of libertarianism in medical ethics as far as denying medical treatment is concerned. As noted above, some are concerned about medical procedures not mentioned in the rule being included as matters of conscience for some clinicians. There are all kinds of matters of conscience that this rule will undoubdedly bring to light. This rule is not simply a regulation – if it continues it will create a new ethical paradigm – the belief that personal ethics trump responsibility to clients in the professional relationship.

From all reports, the creators of this law seem to presume a traditionally Christian-based bioethical stance as either the legal heritage of the USA and/or the proper direction which the USA should take. It appears that they have their own minds made up since they have not adapted the rule based on widespread public input. (Huffington Post, 12/19/08) They seem unconcerned about the need for people of various viewpoints to live together amicably in a multicultural society, and in a society that does not reflect their common moral viewpoint.

And curiously and in contradiction to the Christian tradition which they seem to represent, this rule appears to be another example of the Bush administration’s nietzschean approach to create social change. In more genteel new age terms, this tactic could also be characterized as an attempt to create their own reality. This from a president who said Jesus was the most influential political thinker in his life! Jesus, the one who said “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Yet President Bush wants to be known as a president who promoted a culture based on hiding the truth?

Vote or Behead

2008-12-05T22:39:00.000-05:00

Kathleen Parker laments in the Washington Post that most of us are too ignorant to vote. It seems that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that 2,500 Americans could not correctly answer even half of a 33-question test on basic civics.

I wonder how old Kathleen Parker is. Has she herself ever voted? This month I’m old enough to take early retirement, but I’ve known about my ignorance in voting ever since I first entered a voting booth in my early 20’s. I’ve always just assumed everyone else is just as ignorant as me. Of course, I’ve moved around a lot, which means I don’t always have the advantage of getting to know those in my communities well enough to recognize them on a ballot. But come to think of it, a large percentage of Americans move around a lot too.

Anyway, when I vote — and I assume this is when you vote too — you get inside the booth and you see a whole list of names you have no idea what they are there for, or you don’t know anything about those particular people. All you know is you want to vote for the president or for a few particular names.

So in my first voting experience I laughed my emerging voting philosophy into existence by making a whole lot of uninformed choices and flippantly announcing to myself, “the will of the people!”

As I got a little older and the lessons of history began to sink into my consciousness more deeply, I began to realize what a tremendous heritage we have as a country — a gift we should never underestimate — to value the transfer of power from one regime to another, at all levels of society, by the simple act of voting. Throughout history we always hear of how kings and others have had to kill or exile those who were leaders in the former regimes out of fear of rebellion and revolution. But we have agreed to reject violence and accept voting as the final say in the transfer of power.

This is really an amazing heritage we have been given, and it should not be wasted. I remember reading in Readers Digest many years ago, a piece by a former Russian spy who worked in the USA and was always fascinated by the presidential elections. He said he would follow intently because he could not fathom that the leader of a country would actually be determined by the votes of everyday people!

Not really? Yes, really! Everyday people select office holders at every level of government.

Sure, many of us do not always know who we are voting for. If we stay in the same place long enough we have a chance to get to know more about the local politics. But even if we don’t, the alternative to voting is a return to a barbaric system of violence.

Voting is supposed to be informed choice. But even if it is often a lottery, it’s better than the violent alternative.