I was looking at a little mailing--sort of a newsletter--from my congressman. He boasts of "bringing home" federal dollars for projects in his district. The sort of news that gladdens his constituents. We all want to be sure we're getting a piece of that incredibly huge federal pie, don't we? When it's "my back yard," we want all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff.
But if it's someone else's congressman and his district that federal money is going to, we call that "pork barrel legislation," and deplore it.
Are we perhaps being a bit inconsistent? A guy I used to know would use the expression, "It depends on whose ox is being gored." Yes, it matters whether it's us or someone else.
You might call this inconsistent, or hypocritical. Or, how about selfish? I have long maintained that very many people--maybe the average persons--care very little about what goes on beyond the four corners of their lot. Okay, one qualification to that: they care about their children's schools. But, human nature being what it is, everybody's interest is mainly in their personal welfare and their immediate family's, and their physical home.
There are the Mother Theresas and others who have wide horizons and truly want to save the world. But many folks, when they leave their suburban houses in the morning to go to work, and look up and down the street and see two cars in every driveway, truly feel that all is well with the world. Well, maybe it's the working of those needs hierarchies that we learn about in Psych 101. Again, human nature.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Excuse Me, But--Aren't Catholics a Minority?
Some voices on the political Right are complaining against those who, in their view, advocate imposing "minority mores" on the rest of us. I have to think that they are talking about things like gay rights and same-sex marriage.
Consider that, recently, it was the influence of Roman Catholics who succeeded in getting the Stupak amendment added to the health-care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in any federally-administered health insurance.
And a week or so earlier, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, donated $185,000 to further the passage, in Maine, of Proposition 1, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. Plus, the Catholic bishops had done much the same in California, helping to assure passage of Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. They not only used dollars but lobbied heavily--and in California they were notably joined in that effort by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Leave aside for the moment the issue that, supposedly or theoretically, church groups are barred from political action or advocacy, at the peril of losing their tax-exempt status—which is apparently never enforced against the Catholic Church or any right-wing church, although an action for removing the tax-exempt status was brought against a minister who had spoken on the other side of the aisle during the reign of George W. Bush.
The people complaining, as quoted above, about "minorities" who want to impose their mores on the majority must not have been talking about U. S. Roman Catholics—although, last I heard, Catholics were a minority—as are Mormons, for that matter. Catholics just happen to be a wealthy and well-organized minority, not to mention sufficiently powerful that they will not be ignored by politicians.
So, as always, the Right is hypocritical: they inveigh against the very things that they themselves are guilty of. It's "if you want rights, you are a minority who does not speak for Us. But when it's us—well, disregard the fact that we are not the majority, just because we happen to be right!"
Well, if they mean Right—Amen to that.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Consider that, recently, it was the influence of Roman Catholics who succeeded in getting the Stupak amendment added to the health-care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in any federally-administered health insurance.
And a week or so earlier, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, donated $185,000 to further the passage, in Maine, of Proposition 1, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. Plus, the Catholic bishops had done much the same in California, helping to assure passage of Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. They not only used dollars but lobbied heavily--and in California they were notably joined in that effort by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Leave aside for the moment the issue that, supposedly or theoretically, church groups are barred from political action or advocacy, at the peril of losing their tax-exempt status—which is apparently never enforced against the Catholic Church or any right-wing church, although an action for removing the tax-exempt status was brought against a minister who had spoken on the other side of the aisle during the reign of George W. Bush.
The people complaining, as quoted above, about "minorities" who want to impose their mores on the majority must not have been talking about U. S. Roman Catholics—although, last I heard, Catholics were a minority—as are Mormons, for that matter. Catholics just happen to be a wealthy and well-organized minority, not to mention sufficiently powerful that they will not be ignored by politicians.
So, as always, the Right is hypocritical: they inveigh against the very things that they themselves are guilty of. It's "if you want rights, you are a minority who does not speak for Us. But when it's us—well, disregard the fact that we are not the majority, just because we happen to be right!"
Well, if they mean Right—Amen to that.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Capital Punishment: A Dilemma
This is not going to argue the case for or against capital punishment, per se, but merely to look at some of the methods of capital punishment employed in modern times and see whether they are humane.
The following methods of execution are used in the 37 states that have a death penalty: lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, firing squad, and hanging. The electric chair is probably not as common as it used to be. Indiana, for example, has dropped the electric chair in favor of lethal injection. Nebraska is the only state where it is still the primary method of execution. However, in 2008 the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the use of the electric chair as a method of execution violates the Nebraska Constitution. Electrocution may be less widely used because of a number of horror stories about, for example, the number of jolts required before the condemned expired; the condemned's body catching fire; and so forth.
But lethal injection, now the preferred method in many states, has its problems as well. The same writer says, "The first execution [by lethal injection] was conducted in 1982 and is now the preferred execution method in every state except one (Nebraska still only performs electrocutions). Lethal injections involve three consecutive drugs; the first sedates the prisoner, the next relaxes the chest muscles to stop breathing, and the third stops the heart."*
Among the problems with lethal injection are that the drugs are sometimes not administered in the proper amounts, and sometimes the agony of the prisoner, when he is unable to breathe, is obvious. Also, as the same article points out, the people who administer the IV are prison guards, not medical professionals—medical professionals typically consider participating in executions to be against the Hippocratic Oath they have taken—such that at times the injected substances have gone into muscles rather than veins, and have left visible chemical burns on the flesh.
The same article says that we are not comfortable with any method of capital punishment that results in a corpse giving any appearance other than that of a natural death. We don't want to have to confront any evidence of what we have done, that is, to murder a human being.
Addendum published Dec. 9, 2009: Here is an article about the State of Ohio switching to a single-drug lethal injection, the first such to be used in the US (and their first execution with this method just occurred, according to today's news). Nebraska will be watching carefully. The reason for the switch is the botched executions referred to above, one of which took two hours because the executioners could not find veins in the condemned.
http://news.aol.com/article/ohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug/705937?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug%2F705937
*Daniel Guarnera, "Hard to Kill: Why Can’t the U.S. Find a Suitable Execution Method?" Internationalist Review, 2007-01-04.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
The following methods of execution are used in the 37 states that have a death penalty: lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, firing squad, and hanging. The electric chair is probably not as common as it used to be. Indiana, for example, has dropped the electric chair in favor of lethal injection. Nebraska is the only state where it is still the primary method of execution. However, in 2008 the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the use of the electric chair as a method of execution violates the Nebraska Constitution. Electrocution may be less widely used because of a number of horror stories about, for example, the number of jolts required before the condemned expired; the condemned's body catching fire; and so forth.
This device [the electric chair]—considered progressive and compassionate when it was introduced—has fallen almost completely out of favor because it frequently results in vomiting, violent muscle spasms, and burning flesh. Even after having a century to perfect the procedure, the heads of two prisoners in Florida caught on fire during their executions in the late 1990s, prompting the governor to scrap the state’s electric chair altogether.*
But lethal injection, now the preferred method in many states, has its problems as well. The same writer says, "The first execution [by lethal injection] was conducted in 1982 and is now the preferred execution method in every state except one (Nebraska still only performs electrocutions). Lethal injections involve three consecutive drugs; the first sedates the prisoner, the next relaxes the chest muscles to stop breathing, and the third stops the heart."*
Among the problems with lethal injection are that the drugs are sometimes not administered in the proper amounts, and sometimes the agony of the prisoner, when he is unable to breathe, is obvious. Also, as the same article points out, the people who administer the IV are prison guards, not medical professionals—medical professionals typically consider participating in executions to be against the Hippocratic Oath they have taken—such that at times the injected substances have gone into muscles rather than veins, and have left visible chemical burns on the flesh.
The same article says that we are not comfortable with any method of capital punishment that results in a corpse giving any appearance other than that of a natural death. We don't want to have to confront any evidence of what we have done, that is, to murder a human being.
Addendum published Dec. 9, 2009: Here is an article about the State of Ohio switching to a single-drug lethal injection, the first such to be used in the US (and their first execution with this method just occurred, according to today's news). Nebraska will be watching carefully. The reason for the switch is the botched executions referred to above, one of which took two hours because the executioners could not find veins in the condemned.
http://news.aol.com/article/ohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug/705937?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug%2F705937
*Daniel Guarnera, "Hard to Kill: Why Can’t the U.S. Find a Suitable Execution Method?" Internationalist Review, 2007-01-04.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Who Is Behind the Conservative Backlash?
According to the news, there are a lot of organized gatherings and demonstrations of conservatives who are angry. A few weeks ago we heard of the shouting at health care reform meetings held by congressmen; and there were the "tea parties."
I said then and I say again that these groups are largely staged. Last night (11/2), on ABC News NightLine, Terry Moran interviewed Dick Armey, who used to be a (very conservative) congressman from Texas and is now organizing these protests. He refused to answer Terry's questions about corporate funding of his organization.
If he doesn't want to discuss something, that certainly looks like he does not want the answer revealed. U.S. corporations, almost without exception, take a conservative position: for example less government regulation, lower corporate (and personal) taxes. And wealthy Americans also want to hold on to their money, rather than allow the government to take some of it and spread it around; so these people naturally support—and very handsomely fund—right-wing causes. I have to think that many Americans—those in these groups and demonstrations that we are seeing—if they are truly the "little" or "average" Americans that they claim to be, are being made dupes by these corporate interests. They are saying they want to hold onto their money—though I don't see Obama raising taxes—and their guns and their freedom. I don't see that the threats that they are afraid of are real ones; they have been manufactured by cynical conservative and corporate interests.
Large U. S. corporations are caught in a dilemma and are playing a dangerous game. On the one hand they are supporting and probably in fact organizing (if indirectly) these gatherings and protests. But the protests are protesting "Obama-nomics" measures such as bailouts of banks and corporations. Corporations are aiding, abetting, and even organizing protests against "big government" when government policies have in fact benefitted them. Their game must be subtle, devious, and cynical. I think it's, "Anything for the larger conservative cause, and against a liberal president, even if some of those policies have benefitted us."
I have to think that, although the business-corporate and banking-investment communities have benefitted from bailouts under the Obama administration, in spite of this fact they still would not want to in any way be supportive of a Democratic administration because they believe they would pay a price of being more closely regulated under a Democratic administration, whereas Republicans are traditionally—some say notoriously—in favor of laissez-faire.
The little guy or average American who we see in these protesting crowds somehow fails to see, or forgets, that the Republican party is the party of those who have wealth and power—the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male—and want to hold on to it.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
I said then and I say again that these groups are largely staged. Last night (11/2), on ABC News NightLine, Terry Moran interviewed Dick Armey, who used to be a (very conservative) congressman from Texas and is now organizing these protests. He refused to answer Terry's questions about corporate funding of his organization.
If he doesn't want to discuss something, that certainly looks like he does not want the answer revealed. U.S. corporations, almost without exception, take a conservative position: for example less government regulation, lower corporate (and personal) taxes. And wealthy Americans also want to hold on to their money, rather than allow the government to take some of it and spread it around; so these people naturally support—and very handsomely fund—right-wing causes. I have to think that many Americans—those in these groups and demonstrations that we are seeing—if they are truly the "little" or "average" Americans that they claim to be, are being made dupes by these corporate interests. They are saying they want to hold onto their money—though I don't see Obama raising taxes—and their guns and their freedom. I don't see that the threats that they are afraid of are real ones; they have been manufactured by cynical conservative and corporate interests.
Large U. S. corporations are caught in a dilemma and are playing a dangerous game. On the one hand they are supporting and probably in fact organizing (if indirectly) these gatherings and protests. But the protests are protesting "Obama-nomics" measures such as bailouts of banks and corporations. Corporations are aiding, abetting, and even organizing protests against "big government" when government policies have in fact benefitted them. Their game must be subtle, devious, and cynical. I think it's, "Anything for the larger conservative cause, and against a liberal president, even if some of those policies have benefitted us."
I have to think that, although the business-corporate and banking-investment communities have benefitted from bailouts under the Obama administration, in spite of this fact they still would not want to in any way be supportive of a Democratic administration because they believe they would pay a price of being more closely regulated under a Democratic administration, whereas Republicans are traditionally—some say notoriously—in favor of laissez-faire.
The little guy or average American who we see in these protesting crowds somehow fails to see, or forgets, that the Republican party is the party of those who have wealth and power—the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male—and want to hold on to it.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Voices Opposing More Troops for Afghanistan
A gentleman named Hoh, a civilian career diplomat stationed in Afghanistan, recently resigned his post because he does not believe that current U.S. policy in Afghanistan is productive, and he does not support increasing troop levels. He has stated that he feels that the Afghan population views U.S. troops as military occupiers.
And another voice of opposition comes from U.S. Representative Jane Harmon of California, who seems to be saying that, since the administration of Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai is corrupt and riddled with cronyism, it does not have the backing of the Afghan people; and that the U.S., in backing Karzai, thus cannot have the support of the Afghan people either.
As I have said before, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have parallels in the Vietnam war, from which we apparently learned little or nothing. In Vietnam (if anyone still remembers), the French had pulled out after being defeated at Dien Bien Phu. They were succeeded by the Americans. This parallels Afghanistan in that the Russians were in Afghanistan and pulled out; and somehow, the U.S. now is there to again show the Afghans that foreigners want to control their country.
In Vietnam, the U.S. just increased and increased troop levels. Now we are doing that in Afghanistan. Also, the U.S. was propping up the unpopular, dictatorial government of Ngo Dinh Diem which violated the Geneva Accords on Vietnam that were established when the French withdrew. (Source: Encarta Encyclopedia s.v. Ngo Dinh Diem)
Another parallel: U.S. forces are supposedly training Afghan forces so that they will be better able to fight the Taliban. In Vietnam, U.S. troops supposedly were to be withdrawn once South Vietnamese army forces had become able, with U.S. training, to take over the battle against Communist forces. It didn't work then; is it going to work this time? Can you say "rhetorical question"?
Also, note that we are not fighting al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, we are fighting the Taliban. These are bad guys, I'd agree. They want a fundamentalist theocracy in Afghanistan, and these are the boys who blew up the ancient, colossal Buddhist statues--surely a crime against world culture. And they keep infiltrating Pakistan, or have bases in Pakistan. But these are issues for the Afghan and Pakistani governments. It's not clear that the U.S. has a direct interest here, in spite of what American soldiers believe because they have been told so.
Again, I can't wholeheartedly support "our troops" when, remember, they are volunteers and they are doing what they are doing under the mistaken idea that they are fighting for their country or, at least, their country's interests.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
And another voice of opposition comes from U.S. Representative Jane Harmon of California, who seems to be saying that, since the administration of Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai is corrupt and riddled with cronyism, it does not have the backing of the Afghan people; and that the U.S., in backing Karzai, thus cannot have the support of the Afghan people either.
As I have said before, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have parallels in the Vietnam war, from which we apparently learned little or nothing. In Vietnam (if anyone still remembers), the French had pulled out after being defeated at Dien Bien Phu. They were succeeded by the Americans. This parallels Afghanistan in that the Russians were in Afghanistan and pulled out; and somehow, the U.S. now is there to again show the Afghans that foreigners want to control their country.
In Vietnam, the U.S. just increased and increased troop levels. Now we are doing that in Afghanistan. Also, the U.S. was propping up the unpopular, dictatorial government of Ngo Dinh Diem which violated the Geneva Accords on Vietnam that were established when the French withdrew. (Source: Encarta Encyclopedia s.v. Ngo Dinh Diem)
Another parallel: U.S. forces are supposedly training Afghan forces so that they will be better able to fight the Taliban. In Vietnam, U.S. troops supposedly were to be withdrawn once South Vietnamese army forces had become able, with U.S. training, to take over the battle against Communist forces. It didn't work then; is it going to work this time? Can you say "rhetorical question"?
Also, note that we are not fighting al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, we are fighting the Taliban. These are bad guys, I'd agree. They want a fundamentalist theocracy in Afghanistan, and these are the boys who blew up the ancient, colossal Buddhist statues--surely a crime against world culture. And they keep infiltrating Pakistan, or have bases in Pakistan. But these are issues for the Afghan and Pakistani governments. It's not clear that the U.S. has a direct interest here, in spite of what American soldiers believe because they have been told so.
Again, I can't wholeheartedly support "our troops" when, remember, they are volunteers and they are doing what they are doing under the mistaken idea that they are fighting for their country or, at least, their country's interests.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Another Polce Officer Who (Allegedly) Is a Criminal
A few months ago, a Chicago police officer was driving his Lexus SUV while his blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. He crashed into an SUV stopped on the shoulder, setting it afire and killing two young men who were inside.
Then he tried to calmly, slowly, nonchalantly walk away!
Fortunately he was apprehended. Now the policemen's union (the Fraternal Order of Police) is hosting a benefit event to raise money for this man's defense. This, I think, shows how the police stick together, never disavowing one of their number. They simply cannot or will not ever acknowledge that one of their number is a wrongdoer.
Then he tried to calmly, slowly, nonchalantly walk away!
Fortunately he was apprehended. Now the policemen's union (the Fraternal Order of Police) is hosting a benefit event to raise money for this man's defense. This, I think, shows how the police stick together, never disavowing one of their number. They simply cannot or will not ever acknowledge that one of their number is a wrongdoer.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The French Have a Word for It
Have you ever had the experience of thinking, "I should have said such-and-such," or "I wish I had thought of saying such-and-such"? Of course you have; it's a very common experience.
Well, the French have a word for it, l'esprit de l'escalier, which literally means 'the spirit of the staircase'. The idea, presumably, is that you've just left someone's apartment and you've started down the stairs, and you think of what you should have said.
Well, today I thought of something I should have said--a couple of years ago! I know it sounds odd to be thinking of a situation that long ago. If I explained the association, or what triggered the memory, it might make more sense (trust me on this).
What I thought of as what I should have said would have been the perfect putdown to a person who was being obnoxious. It not only would have shut him up, I would have gotten a laugh, I'm sure, from the rest of the people at the table.
It's enough to make you wish you could travel back in time, so that you could have another chance to say what you should have said!
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Well, the French have a word for it, l'esprit de l'escalier, which literally means 'the spirit of the staircase'. The idea, presumably, is that you've just left someone's apartment and you've started down the stairs, and you think of what you should have said.
Well, today I thought of something I should have said--a couple of years ago! I know it sounds odd to be thinking of a situation that long ago. If I explained the association, or what triggered the memory, it might make more sense (trust me on this).
What I thought of as what I should have said would have been the perfect putdown to a person who was being obnoxious. It not only would have shut him up, I would have gotten a laugh, I'm sure, from the rest of the people at the table.
It's enough to make you wish you could travel back in time, so that you could have another chance to say what you should have said!
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
