Warren Buffet is the 2nd richest person in America, and one of the most successful corporate investors. When he has something to say about the economy, people listen. One of his most recent comments was: “Money will always flow toward opportunity, and there is an abundance of that in America. [Our] best days lie ahead.” Then he went on to lay down a few more billion dollars on his latest corporate acquisition.
Buffet also famously said, “I never buy anything whose business purpose and plan I cannot understand.” Good advice. The man avoids speculation and focuses on solid real businesses that create tangible products and/or provide really needed services that people need, not just paper profits. As a result, he managed to quite nicely survive the 2000 “dot.com” collapse as well as the more recent real estate/mortgage implosion.
But while Mr. Buffet may represent the substantive version of “money flows to opportunity,” too many other investors (speculators) have a more unseemly version of that concept. In spite of all the talk about the current Great Recession, the flip side is that right now there are too many people and corporations with too many dollars on their hands. They are people that profited from the Great Recession, who sold off early and left “the suckers” holding the worthless mortgages; the unethical CEOs who took the bailout money from the Bush administration, recapitalized their losses, quickly paid back the taxpayers/government with barely a “thank you,” and then went about their business-as-usual practices unscathed. Add in the already rich that are invested in the “basic need” products (e.g. agriculture, energy, oil) who never ventured into the financial swamp and suffered little from the downturn. Combine all that money with the record profits big corporate America is enjoying (versus middle-class wage earners) due to lean staffing, the world’s highest productivity per worker, and the typically more than 50% of corporate earnings coming from overseas operations. Despite what the economic news reports say to Mr./Ms. Average American, this investor class right now is awash in excess dollars.
But dollars sitting dormant in a bank account do not grow. They need to be put somewhere, converted from stagnant to working dollars. The first option is to buy another money generator, available to be bought at a depressed price, and a good cash cow that can generate more good profits. In that strategy, we are seeing a growing market for corporate mergers and acquisitions.
But when you run out of “real” products (aka other businesses) to acquire, you have to create new products. Creating real, tangible products that people need takes too long, is hard work, and requires actual skills – in engineering, research, manufacturing, management and marketing. Too slow. It is much quicker to simply make dollars from “the sale of sales”: easy effort, low overhead, almost a one-person operation, easy in, get out at the right moment. All you need is some excess cash (hopefully someone else’s!) to play with, sufficient to make enough noise to convince others that “the next big thing” is coming around the corner. Like a magnet on steel, the dollars will begin to flow.
That is essentially what happened with the internet bubble of the 1990s. Amazon and EBay came into being, and a new industry of “online retail” was born. Anyone with a good story and a 20-year-old programmer was in business looking for financing. Venture capitalists who could not spell “i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t” pumped in billions of dollars; companies with no assets went public on the New York Stock Exchange. Stock prices soared; paper millionaires abounded; sales and revenues were non-existent. Then one day it all imploded. Investments disappeared for the late buyers who got into the game “before it was too late.” Because it was already too late. The smart ones got in at the front, contained their greed, and walked away with the real cash.
Same thing happened a few years later, when some folks said, “Let’s go back to our old money-making friends – real estate & mortgage sales; they are always good for a fresh run.” We were all horrified at Bernie Madoff’s gigantic Ponzi scheme: new investments covering old investments hiding no assets. The Great Recession was the biggest Ponzi scheme of all – but today only Madoff sits in jail.
Today we are seeing the latest legalized Ponzi scheme – except the rich boys are smart enough to call it “Capitalism’s supply and demand.” Each week – or is it each day? – I drive by a 3-gas-station intersection and observe the current price/gallon. For months it has gone up as steadily as the coming spring temperatures. 2-3 years ago when we heard of a $3.50 price the news media were all over the story; the vacation industry predicted its collapse as people canceled vacations and cruises; new commuting and driving habits were promised; the case for alternative energy versus Middle East oil had finally been made! Then the crude oil price collapsed, and we all went back to driving the same as before.
Now we are watching a rerun of that movie. Like before, there is no real shortage of oil in barrels; demand is inching up, but quantity is still adequate. Libya’s instability in the latest blamed culprit for prices – but prices had begun to rise long before the first protestor hit the streets of Tripoli. And the price at the pump rises the same day that crude oil rises, even though that gas will not be in the ground at my local station for months. No, this is not about supply and demand or capitalism. It is about cash – too much of it with nowhere else to go. Oil traders and moneymen put out the word that “oil is the next great place where we are going to play with money.” With this announcement (and fueled by all the economic talking heads predicting $4/gallon this summer), speculators all jumped in like trained seals and bid up the price from $50 → $100 → $??? just because they can. They are all betting with each other on what will be the ultimate price limit for this episode of the monopoly game – and who will be the ones left holding the empty barrel. It has nothing to do with actual oil.
The moneymen play with other people’s money. The working stiff leaves his/her car at home and tries to ride multiple bus connections to work. Politicians want to drill more off-sea oil, which will only create more oil to invest in, not oil needed for cars and furnaces. Congress inexplicably votes to continue to give the most profitable corporations – oil companies – tax subsidies while concurrently screaming about the need to cut costs and balance the federal budget, and to cut funding for the new financial regulatory mechanisms designed to prevent a recurrence of this past decade’s financial fraud.
Go try to figure this thing out. And why we continue to allow it. I can’t.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Dis-Unionizing
In my blog posting of January 29th, 2011, we discussed the quantum leap from campaign rhetoric about shrinking government and reducing deficits and debts to actually legislating such seismic changes. Especially with reductions of the scale promised by incoming conservatives from the 2010 election. Since that blog was posted, we have seen some of the opening salvos of the federal, state and local budget battles to come, previews of the economic and political gyrations that will likely dominate this year’s national discussions.
While the federal government thus far dithers and grandstands and maneuvers, the real battles have emerged in the states. Unlike the federal budget, deficits are not allowed there. A small number of states are in good shape for their next fiscal year; many are facing colossal shortfalls. The short-term answer in ½-dozen states? Blame the problem, and find the solution, on “state workers.” Starting with Wisconsin and moving to other (mainly mid-Western rust belt) states, reducing wages and/or benefits, raising benefit premiums, limiting/eliminating union bargaining rights regarding employment aspects, has become a magic bullet solution for these states. In terms of political agenda and values, it is a Republican’s dream issue come true, and a Democrat’s worse nightmare.
Truth be told, there are in fact changes that need to be made in government employment and are well overdue. Sadly, those specific surgical changes needed are likely to be overwhelmed and lost in the rush of an attempted meat-cleaver dismantling of public service. “We’re broke” will be used as a blanket excuse to fulfill long-frustrated political agendas, just as “creating jobs” will be used as an excuse for trying to eliminate every government regulatory agency and rule in sight, regardless of net value to the citizenry.
Unfortunately, in many instances government employees, teachers and their unions have brought a certain measure of this havoc upon themselves. There are large numbers of employees engaged in providing services to the people that are appropriate for our federal/state/local governments. Many do so with high personal and ethical standards, genuine concern about the mission and clients they serve, and professionalism in their manner of performance and resulting output. There are many educators, from kindergarten through college, who intensively believe in the value of the knowledge they teach and the human potential that exists in their students, potential just waiting to be tapped into and released. These workers slog on against micromanagement, inadequate facilities and resources, lack of public understanding of what they do and how they have to do it, and the arcane rules and process they have to work within in order to do their jobs. These are all people who deserve far better than they have been given.
But there are also far too many employees whose dedication is only to themselves. Whose creativity has long burned out, whose interest for the concerns of citizens has disappeared, whose job performance is unacceptable by any standard of measure, or whose job conduct is unethical at best if not illegal. The only apparent skill set they now have is knowing well how to beat or milk “the system.” The rules, union contracts, human resource policies and procedures, combined with unqualified supervisors unwilling (or un-allowed) to take on bad performers, all conspire to keep under-performers firmly in place and grossly overpaid.
These are the public employees that taxpayers often see, very visible on the front lines of taxpayer contact. It is the bureaucrat behind the counter who does not have answers and could care less about your problems or the time demands on you. It is the school teacher who cannot teach and cares little about your child’s needs. It is the college professor who is more interested in his/her research and pet projects than teaching or properly advising his/her students – in spite of continually rising tuition charges. Behind them may be untrained toxic-supervisors stifling or driving out good performers while keeping their lesser cronies. The public does not often see the flat wages, hiring freezes, broken or insufficient equipment, unpaid overtime, and a constant demand to “do more with less” environment that many dedicated employees work within. They all too frequently instead see this worst-of-the-bunch who are held unaccountable for their incompetency and unethical conduct. It is not a question of rank; it is a protected incompetency that can extend from the custodian to the professional to the department head to the college president. It is a special protection, a cocoon, that the average taxpayer does not have available, and this have/have-not is disturbing when your home ownership is threatened.
As long as public employees and their unions continue to countenance this unaccountability of their peers, and continue to clean up after them and do their work, the vast innocents will be tarnished and likewise buried under this growing taxpayer revolt. Yes, taxpayers will scream once again when teachers get laid off for budget reasons and classroom sizes swell; they will protest reductions in staffing for police and fire safety; they will be frustrated by reduced office hours in government offices or the reduced services available to them. These are all the standard tricks of the protest techniques polished by years of union reaction strategies. But this time people may well endure these complaints if they feel that they are not getting value for their tax dollars, or that they are being asked to save jobs for people who do not deserve to be saved. Because when you feel no one is looking out to help save your job, or assist you in your financial need, or has some special rules available to them, it is harder to be charitable to someone who you feel is not a job worth saving.
How this will play out is hard to predict. But responsible educators and public employees would be well advised to get in front of reform after long years of being the unyielding wall against any change, or being silent about in-bred incompetencies. The old fear arguments may no longer work today. Some people may be willing to have their child in a larger class IF it means that there is a better teacher in front of the room, and the parent with a resulting improved after-tax income can better afford to clothe, feed and shelter that child. It is time to cut loose and quit protecting those that do not deserve protection, and for all of us to give our full support to the still dedicated high-performing ones who richly deserve it. To clean your own house before others do it for you in ways you will not like. “The times they are a-changing.”
While the federal government thus far dithers and grandstands and maneuvers, the real battles have emerged in the states. Unlike the federal budget, deficits are not allowed there. A small number of states are in good shape for their next fiscal year; many are facing colossal shortfalls. The short-term answer in ½-dozen states? Blame the problem, and find the solution, on “state workers.” Starting with Wisconsin and moving to other (mainly mid-Western rust belt) states, reducing wages and/or benefits, raising benefit premiums, limiting/eliminating union bargaining rights regarding employment aspects, has become a magic bullet solution for these states. In terms of political agenda and values, it is a Republican’s dream issue come true, and a Democrat’s worse nightmare.
Truth be told, there are in fact changes that need to be made in government employment and are well overdue. Sadly, those specific surgical changes needed are likely to be overwhelmed and lost in the rush of an attempted meat-cleaver dismantling of public service. “We’re broke” will be used as a blanket excuse to fulfill long-frustrated political agendas, just as “creating jobs” will be used as an excuse for trying to eliminate every government regulatory agency and rule in sight, regardless of net value to the citizenry.
Unfortunately, in many instances government employees, teachers and their unions have brought a certain measure of this havoc upon themselves. There are large numbers of employees engaged in providing services to the people that are appropriate for our federal/state/local governments. Many do so with high personal and ethical standards, genuine concern about the mission and clients they serve, and professionalism in their manner of performance and resulting output. There are many educators, from kindergarten through college, who intensively believe in the value of the knowledge they teach and the human potential that exists in their students, potential just waiting to be tapped into and released. These workers slog on against micromanagement, inadequate facilities and resources, lack of public understanding of what they do and how they have to do it, and the arcane rules and process they have to work within in order to do their jobs. These are all people who deserve far better than they have been given.
But there are also far too many employees whose dedication is only to themselves. Whose creativity has long burned out, whose interest for the concerns of citizens has disappeared, whose job performance is unacceptable by any standard of measure, or whose job conduct is unethical at best if not illegal. The only apparent skill set they now have is knowing well how to beat or milk “the system.” The rules, union contracts, human resource policies and procedures, combined with unqualified supervisors unwilling (or un-allowed) to take on bad performers, all conspire to keep under-performers firmly in place and grossly overpaid.
These are the public employees that taxpayers often see, very visible on the front lines of taxpayer contact. It is the bureaucrat behind the counter who does not have answers and could care less about your problems or the time demands on you. It is the school teacher who cannot teach and cares little about your child’s needs. It is the college professor who is more interested in his/her research and pet projects than teaching or properly advising his/her students – in spite of continually rising tuition charges. Behind them may be untrained toxic-supervisors stifling or driving out good performers while keeping their lesser cronies. The public does not often see the flat wages, hiring freezes, broken or insufficient equipment, unpaid overtime, and a constant demand to “do more with less” environment that many dedicated employees work within. They all too frequently instead see this worst-of-the-bunch who are held unaccountable for their incompetency and unethical conduct. It is not a question of rank; it is a protected incompetency that can extend from the custodian to the professional to the department head to the college president. It is a special protection, a cocoon, that the average taxpayer does not have available, and this have/have-not is disturbing when your home ownership is threatened.
As long as public employees and their unions continue to countenance this unaccountability of their peers, and continue to clean up after them and do their work, the vast innocents will be tarnished and likewise buried under this growing taxpayer revolt. Yes, taxpayers will scream once again when teachers get laid off for budget reasons and classroom sizes swell; they will protest reductions in staffing for police and fire safety; they will be frustrated by reduced office hours in government offices or the reduced services available to them. These are all the standard tricks of the protest techniques polished by years of union reaction strategies. But this time people may well endure these complaints if they feel that they are not getting value for their tax dollars, or that they are being asked to save jobs for people who do not deserve to be saved. Because when you feel no one is looking out to help save your job, or assist you in your financial need, or has some special rules available to them, it is harder to be charitable to someone who you feel is not a job worth saving.
How this will play out is hard to predict. But responsible educators and public employees would be well advised to get in front of reform after long years of being the unyielding wall against any change, or being silent about in-bred incompetencies. The old fear arguments may no longer work today. Some people may be willing to have their child in a larger class IF it means that there is a better teacher in front of the room, and the parent with a resulting improved after-tax income can better afford to clothe, feed and shelter that child. It is time to cut loose and quit protecting those that do not deserve protection, and for all of us to give our full support to the still dedicated high-performing ones who richly deserve it. To clean your own house before others do it for you in ways you will not like. “The times they are a-changing.”
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Progress By Generations
Some days when we survey the state of our country and our personal lives, it can easily be a discouraging view. The problems are many; the solutions seem few and ineffective; progress appears stunted; our divisions run deep. The density of the trees of our problems seems to shut out the sunlight through the forest that can guide us to a new place of being. The issues in front of us often seem to be the same recurring issues mankind has faced for millennia. In the reality of billions of people in this world, the possibility of my individual self making much of a real difference in the state of things feels pretty minimal.
When I get those feelings of discouragement, if not pessimism, it seems helpful to retreat back from a today’s perspective and look instead at a longer view of the human condition and its evolution. As it turns out, our American experience seems like a pretty good reference point of human progress.
On a comparative basis, America is still a relatively young country. We realize that when we visit Europe, Asia or the Middle East, all of whom measure time in the thousands of years. Our founding history seems like so long ago in proportion to our individual lives and experiences, and our images of our colonial times. Yet in truth we are only a little over 225 years old as an independent country. At today’s rates of life expectancy, our entire history can be encapsulated within only three successive lifetimes. My mother’s life spanned 1919-1999, essentially a scan of the 20th century after World War I. Her great grandfather from Tennessee fought for the South in the Civil War, and lived to see the dawn of the 20th century and hear about a man in flight above the earth. One lifetime before him, a son of my Revolutionary War patriot ancestor was born at the beginning of the American Republic, and grew up with it into our ultimate test of the Civil War. And now my own grandchildren are just beginning the 4th lifetime of the American Story. How much will we have seen through the course of our lifetime!
If we go a step further and break down our story over the twelve 20-year generations of our experience, it surprises me how neatly our historical story can be boxed up in that increment. It is as if God perfectly gives each generation its shot to make its mark, advance the human condition one net step forward out of that generation’s chaos, and then pass the torch on to the next group to try once again. Each generation has its major failing, but it is balanced by its major accomplishment. So what does our “story by the generations” look like?
1763-1788: The end of the French-Indian war, resulting in heavy taxes on America, which led to the American Revolution and the confederation of American States. The American was opportunity created.
1788-1808: U.S. Constitution and the federal system – radical new experiment in government. BUT: citizenship and voting rights limited by race, gender, age and religion – white property-owning males (the elite), only @10-16% of the population. Founding Fathers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson et al.
1809-1828: 2nd (and last) generation of Founding Fathers: Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams. War of 1812. American government stabilized, lasting precedents established. Last religious citizenship restriction eliminated.
1829-1848: Leadership passed from Founding Fathers to era of “the common man.” Property ownership citizenship restriction eliminated. First American war of expansion, with Mexico. Westward expansion; Indian relocation. Jackson and a new “western / frontier” breed of presidents.
1849-1876: Slavery, Secession, and Reconstruction. Union affirmed; slavery ended. Race citizenship restriction eliminated. Lincoln, Grant presidencies.
1877-1900: Big business and mega-wealth: era of the super-rich – Carnegie, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Vanderbilts; creation of economic elite. Rise of trade unionism and violent strikes against management. Cycles of booms and depressions. Successive un-noteworthy presidents.
1901-1920: International engagement and World War I; Invention and entrepreneurs – Edison, Ford, entertainment industry (radio, movies, records). Gender citizenship restriction eliminated; direct election of U.S. senators by voters. Anti-trust legislation/breakup of monopolies. Child labor laws. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson presidencies.
1921-1940: Economic boom (Harding/Coolidge/Hoover) followed by bust – Great Depression (Franklin Roosevelt). Liberalism, social programs, federal government expansion; institution of “social safety net” for disadvantaged. Financial regulation laws/agencies enacted. Jazz → Swing eras. Silent Charlie Chaplain → Bob Hope radio; “The Birth of a Nation” → “Wizard of Oz.”
1941-1960: “Greatest Generation.” World War II; begin 65 years of peace in Western Europe. International leadership/superpower; ideological war with USSR. Korean War. Domestic calm, growth of new “middle class.” Sinatra → Elvis. African-American integration of schools and military. Eisenhower.
1961-1980: Upheaval, unrest, loss of institutional trust. Assassinations, Viet Nam, street demonstrations, rioting in cities. Youth versus parents. Civil rights and women’s movement push anti–discrimination in fact, not just in law. Medicare instituted. American on moon. Beatles; Peter/Paul/Mary. Kennedy/Johnson; Nixon-1st resignation of a president.
1980-2000: Retrenchment: liberalism → political center. Middle-class recoil from social change, growth of “conservative right.” Begin economic deregulation. Fall of USSR; freedom to Eastern Europe. Internet/instant global communication. Reagan, Bush, Clinton presidencies.
2000-2020: ?????
Each generation has suffered its share of trials of war, economic hardships, and social disruption. But each generation has made some progress in our economic well-being, mutual relationships, social justice and our equal rights of citizenship. What will history say about this current generation of our story, the story that began in 2000?
The past has led us to today; our present will lead us to tomorrow. Where is our tomorrow going? What do we want it to look like? The momentous events we have watched unfold in Egypt over these past weeks call upon us to ask ourselves – What will we choose to do or say today that will cause the creation of that tomorrow?
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do some things. Just because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.” (Edward Everett Hale, UUC minister)
When I get those feelings of discouragement, if not pessimism, it seems helpful to retreat back from a today’s perspective and look instead at a longer view of the human condition and its evolution. As it turns out, our American experience seems like a pretty good reference point of human progress.
On a comparative basis, America is still a relatively young country. We realize that when we visit Europe, Asia or the Middle East, all of whom measure time in the thousands of years. Our founding history seems like so long ago in proportion to our individual lives and experiences, and our images of our colonial times. Yet in truth we are only a little over 225 years old as an independent country. At today’s rates of life expectancy, our entire history can be encapsulated within only three successive lifetimes. My mother’s life spanned 1919-1999, essentially a scan of the 20th century after World War I. Her great grandfather from Tennessee fought for the South in the Civil War, and lived to see the dawn of the 20th century and hear about a man in flight above the earth. One lifetime before him, a son of my Revolutionary War patriot ancestor was born at the beginning of the American Republic, and grew up with it into our ultimate test of the Civil War. And now my own grandchildren are just beginning the 4th lifetime of the American Story. How much will we have seen through the course of our lifetime!
If we go a step further and break down our story over the twelve 20-year generations of our experience, it surprises me how neatly our historical story can be boxed up in that increment. It is as if God perfectly gives each generation its shot to make its mark, advance the human condition one net step forward out of that generation’s chaos, and then pass the torch on to the next group to try once again. Each generation has its major failing, but it is balanced by its major accomplishment. So what does our “story by the generations” look like?
1763-1788: The end of the French-Indian war, resulting in heavy taxes on America, which led to the American Revolution and the confederation of American States. The American was opportunity created.
1788-1808: U.S. Constitution and the federal system – radical new experiment in government. BUT: citizenship and voting rights limited by race, gender, age and religion – white property-owning males (the elite), only @10-16% of the population. Founding Fathers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson et al.
1809-1828: 2nd (and last) generation of Founding Fathers: Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams. War of 1812. American government stabilized, lasting precedents established. Last religious citizenship restriction eliminated.
1829-1848: Leadership passed from Founding Fathers to era of “the common man.” Property ownership citizenship restriction eliminated. First American war of expansion, with Mexico. Westward expansion; Indian relocation. Jackson and a new “western / frontier” breed of presidents.
1849-1876: Slavery, Secession, and Reconstruction. Union affirmed; slavery ended. Race citizenship restriction eliminated. Lincoln, Grant presidencies.
1877-1900: Big business and mega-wealth: era of the super-rich – Carnegie, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Vanderbilts; creation of economic elite. Rise of trade unionism and violent strikes against management. Cycles of booms and depressions. Successive un-noteworthy presidents.
1901-1920: International engagement and World War I; Invention and entrepreneurs – Edison, Ford, entertainment industry (radio, movies, records). Gender citizenship restriction eliminated; direct election of U.S. senators by voters. Anti-trust legislation/breakup of monopolies. Child labor laws. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson presidencies.
1921-1940: Economic boom (Harding/Coolidge/Hoover) followed by bust – Great Depression (Franklin Roosevelt). Liberalism, social programs, federal government expansion; institution of “social safety net” for disadvantaged. Financial regulation laws/agencies enacted. Jazz → Swing eras. Silent Charlie Chaplain → Bob Hope radio; “The Birth of a Nation” → “Wizard of Oz.”
1941-1960: “Greatest Generation.” World War II; begin 65 years of peace in Western Europe. International leadership/superpower; ideological war with USSR. Korean War. Domestic calm, growth of new “middle class.” Sinatra → Elvis. African-American integration of schools and military. Eisenhower.
1961-1980: Upheaval, unrest, loss of institutional trust. Assassinations, Viet Nam, street demonstrations, rioting in cities. Youth versus parents. Civil rights and women’s movement push anti–discrimination in fact, not just in law. Medicare instituted. American on moon. Beatles; Peter/Paul/Mary. Kennedy/Johnson; Nixon-1st resignation of a president.
1980-2000: Retrenchment: liberalism → political center. Middle-class recoil from social change, growth of “conservative right.” Begin economic deregulation. Fall of USSR; freedom to Eastern Europe. Internet/instant global communication. Reagan, Bush, Clinton presidencies.
2000-2020: ?????
Each generation has suffered its share of trials of war, economic hardships, and social disruption. But each generation has made some progress in our economic well-being, mutual relationships, social justice and our equal rights of citizenship. What will history say about this current generation of our story, the story that began in 2000?
The past has led us to today; our present will lead us to tomorrow. Where is our tomorrow going? What do we want it to look like? The momentous events we have watched unfold in Egypt over these past weeks call upon us to ask ourselves – What will we choose to do or say today that will cause the creation of that tomorrow?
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do some things. Just because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.” (Edward Everett Hale, UUC minister)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Cut Unneeded Spending - Yours!
The political mantra of 2011 thus far is that it is all about “cutting spending.” This is supposedly the people’s message coming out of the 2010 election. But I suspect that some among us are listening to the people’s message with a tin ear. In fact, 43% in a recent CBS/New York Times poll listed Job Creation as the most important government priority, far outstripping the 18% wanting to revisit Health Care, and only 14% who prioritized Budgeting Cutting.
So let’s talk about this #3 priority – budget cutting – which has nevertheless become the #1 priority of the Washington folks. Is our national debt too high? Yes. Is our annual budget deficit too high? Yes. Is that budget deficit increasingly limiting our ability to be flexible in our national spending decisions, to be able to move spending where it needs to go? Yes. And is our national debt lurking as a behind-the-scenes national security issue, minimizing our response to international issues based upon our debt to other countries? Yes.
We hear of a target by some Tea Party conservatives of cutting $100B from the federal budget this year. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, proposed a spending freeze for 5 years at 2008 levels, but only on non-security spending. This after he had already proposed a 2-year salary freeze on some – but not all – government employees. He endorsed the Republican proposal to end budget earmarks, to which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told him to “back off.” House Republicans voted to reduce their own operating budget; Obama endorsed spending cuts but is opting to reinvest in education, infrastructure and energy. Representative Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Chairman and once a firebrand of targeted, radical spending cuts, came on TV and gave a very good Republican response to Obama’s speech. He reinforced the goal of spending cuts, but said such very gently, in a non-threatening manner, with no specifics stated.
The fact is, everyone is now on board the same “USS Spending Cuts” ship, but no one has yet plotted a sailing course. The nautical maps remain in the drawers. It is like my junior high school prom where all the boys and girls are standing against opposite walls, no one willing to be the ones to break the ice and actually go out on the dance floor. Everyone talks about cutting spending, but no one wants to be the first to say “where.” Why? Because talking about cutting spending at the gross level is easy – “Let’s cut $100B.” (Everyone applauds.) But a cut in spending is actually a cut in some favored program, a cut in services, a cut in someone’s grant award, a loss of someone’s tax benefit. The cut ultimately becomes personal and shows up in someone’s bank account, pay stub, or loss of expected services.
Parks close or stop being maintained. Teachers and police get laid off. Medical assistance gets eliminated. New buildings or municipal projects don’t get built. Agricultural subsidies get cut for food corporations. Purchases from businesses are reduced. “Cutting spending” ultimately translates into “you don’t get anymore what you used to get.” And we have gotten very used to getting what we have gotten. Vague, generic headlines become personal. And when it gets personal, people get angry.
So no politician wants to move yet past the headlines and tell people what really has to happen. The President’s special debt commission delivered their true and sobering report in December – and politicians both left and right said “no” and scurried for cover. But that commission jump-started the real conversation and thankfully gave us a good yardstick we can use to measure all the empty rhetoric we will hear through this year.
Everyone is for cutting government spending – as long as it is money being spent on YOU. If we all can agree on the need to cut, we do not agree at all on where to cut. Your “savings” are my “loss.” Almost all states are facing significant budget deficits this year, having been artificially kept afloat the past two years by the federal stimulus program. Reality beckons. When schools start closing and teachers are let go and class sizes swell, 50% of a police force are let go, libraries are shuttered, students can’t get into college, and municipal services are cut back, then spending cuts will hit home. Eliminating cell phones for many state employees is nice symbolism, but will not make much of a dent in California’s $20B+ deficit.
When we finally really talk about cutting significant spending, it will be ugly. Doomsday scenarios will abound; finger-pointing will be plentiful. Conservatives will rush to protect military spending and the corporate welfare (versus military needs) that drive that budget; liberals will decry cuts to social programs and human welfare that drive discretionary spending. Cutters will nevertheless seek to insulate; insulators will seek to cut. We will go around in circles over what are really questions of 1) national priority; 2) the role of government; and 3) impacts on the American people. Is protecting a national park more or less important than protecting a job than protecting me from a robber than keeping citizens healthy?
The discussion will start with trying to identify the losers, who will get cut, how to maneuver to save my needs from the budget ax. It is only when we accept that all of us have to take this hit in some form that true progress will begin to happen. When nothing is sacrosanct then we have a chance to equitably move forward. We have to look at all things without prejudice.
When Republicans are willing to stop spending dollars on military hardware we don’t need because it pays corporations and employees back home in their districts; when liberals are willing to hold up on educational investments that support shoddy schools, incompetent teachers and self-promoting universities; when WE the citizens stop judging our elected officials by how much grant money they bring home to us for projects we often don’t really need nor are a national priority – when we begin to see politicians on the left and right move away from their traditional stump speeches, sound-bites and stated priorities, only then will I begin to believe that we are truly serious about cutting government ending. And when I see We, the People, supporting those political changes, and giving up our personal benefits and sharing the pain together, then I will believe that we are serious. Until then, it is all talk, all show, all going nowhere. It will just be another angry, divisive moment that we are becoming numb to.
It is time for all my junior high classmates to move away from the wall, talk to each other, and begin to dance together before our dreaded curfew arrives.
So let’s talk about this #3 priority – budget cutting – which has nevertheless become the #1 priority of the Washington folks. Is our national debt too high? Yes. Is our annual budget deficit too high? Yes. Is that budget deficit increasingly limiting our ability to be flexible in our national spending decisions, to be able to move spending where it needs to go? Yes. And is our national debt lurking as a behind-the-scenes national security issue, minimizing our response to international issues based upon our debt to other countries? Yes.
We hear of a target by some Tea Party conservatives of cutting $100B from the federal budget this year. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, proposed a spending freeze for 5 years at 2008 levels, but only on non-security spending. This after he had already proposed a 2-year salary freeze on some – but not all – government employees. He endorsed the Republican proposal to end budget earmarks, to which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told him to “back off.” House Republicans voted to reduce their own operating budget; Obama endorsed spending cuts but is opting to reinvest in education, infrastructure and energy. Representative Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Chairman and once a firebrand of targeted, radical spending cuts, came on TV and gave a very good Republican response to Obama’s speech. He reinforced the goal of spending cuts, but said such very gently, in a non-threatening manner, with no specifics stated.
The fact is, everyone is now on board the same “USS Spending Cuts” ship, but no one has yet plotted a sailing course. The nautical maps remain in the drawers. It is like my junior high school prom where all the boys and girls are standing against opposite walls, no one willing to be the ones to break the ice and actually go out on the dance floor. Everyone talks about cutting spending, but no one wants to be the first to say “where.” Why? Because talking about cutting spending at the gross level is easy – “Let’s cut $100B.” (Everyone applauds.) But a cut in spending is actually a cut in some favored program, a cut in services, a cut in someone’s grant award, a loss of someone’s tax benefit. The cut ultimately becomes personal and shows up in someone’s bank account, pay stub, or loss of expected services.
Parks close or stop being maintained. Teachers and police get laid off. Medical assistance gets eliminated. New buildings or municipal projects don’t get built. Agricultural subsidies get cut for food corporations. Purchases from businesses are reduced. “Cutting spending” ultimately translates into “you don’t get anymore what you used to get.” And we have gotten very used to getting what we have gotten. Vague, generic headlines become personal. And when it gets personal, people get angry.
So no politician wants to move yet past the headlines and tell people what really has to happen. The President’s special debt commission delivered their true and sobering report in December – and politicians both left and right said “no” and scurried for cover. But that commission jump-started the real conversation and thankfully gave us a good yardstick we can use to measure all the empty rhetoric we will hear through this year.
Everyone is for cutting government spending – as long as it is money being spent on YOU. If we all can agree on the need to cut, we do not agree at all on where to cut. Your “savings” are my “loss.” Almost all states are facing significant budget deficits this year, having been artificially kept afloat the past two years by the federal stimulus program. Reality beckons. When schools start closing and teachers are let go and class sizes swell, 50% of a police force are let go, libraries are shuttered, students can’t get into college, and municipal services are cut back, then spending cuts will hit home. Eliminating cell phones for many state employees is nice symbolism, but will not make much of a dent in California’s $20B+ deficit.
When we finally really talk about cutting significant spending, it will be ugly. Doomsday scenarios will abound; finger-pointing will be plentiful. Conservatives will rush to protect military spending and the corporate welfare (versus military needs) that drive that budget; liberals will decry cuts to social programs and human welfare that drive discretionary spending. Cutters will nevertheless seek to insulate; insulators will seek to cut. We will go around in circles over what are really questions of 1) national priority; 2) the role of government; and 3) impacts on the American people. Is protecting a national park more or less important than protecting a job than protecting me from a robber than keeping citizens healthy?
The discussion will start with trying to identify the losers, who will get cut, how to maneuver to save my needs from the budget ax. It is only when we accept that all of us have to take this hit in some form that true progress will begin to happen. When nothing is sacrosanct then we have a chance to equitably move forward. We have to look at all things without prejudice.
When Republicans are willing to stop spending dollars on military hardware we don’t need because it pays corporations and employees back home in their districts; when liberals are willing to hold up on educational investments that support shoddy schools, incompetent teachers and self-promoting universities; when WE the citizens stop judging our elected officials by how much grant money they bring home to us for projects we often don’t really need nor are a national priority – when we begin to see politicians on the left and right move away from their traditional stump speeches, sound-bites and stated priorities, only then will I begin to believe that we are truly serious about cutting government ending. And when I see We, the People, supporting those political changes, and giving up our personal benefits and sharing the pain together, then I will believe that we are serious. Until then, it is all talk, all show, all going nowhere. It will just be another angry, divisive moment that we are becoming numb to.
It is time for all my junior high classmates to move away from the wall, talk to each other, and begin to dance together before our dreaded curfew arrives.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Words Matter
Words Matter.
Last week, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was wounded while conducting a street-side open house with her constituents. Six people in attendance were killed, including a senior federal judge and one of Gifford’s aides, and 13 were wounded. Another angry, loony shooter – whose name I intentionally refuse to state here –has once again captured headlines and left us shaking our collective heads.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who spent most of the last year being a most hateful person in word, demeanor and action, offered (empty) condolences to Giffords and the many families. In contrast, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (of Giffords’ home county) spoke truth to power and called out what we truly know. He observed that, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government: the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, never able to let respectful silence go by unfilled, said that, “we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” But in her statement, Mrs. Palin took no responsibility for helping to create the environment of violence in which politics now operates. However, the image on her website of Congresswoman Giffords’ house district which showed an “X” target in the crosshairs of a gun sight was quickly deleted. Just a coincidence of timing, I am sure. Palin subsequently posted a video defending herself against accusations that her words had contributed to this situation, but then went on to use inflammatory words against those she felt used inflammatory words. There are times when plain silence is the best response.
Words Matter.
I have decried before the cavalier manner in which too many people will say anything, and often do so in violent imagery, for personal fame and gain. Black congressmen walking into the Capitol building to vote for health care reform were subjected to a gauntlet of racial slurs; gun-toting protestors showed up at political rallies; screamers dominated political meetings; public officials have been threatened or their offices broken into; a congressman was treated as a hero for yelling “you lie” at the President in an official State of the Union address. This last year in politics has been tortuous to observe, and an embarrassment to our supposed moral and political leadership role in the world. There have been times when it has felt like we are living in some 3rd- or 4th- world backward country in which violence, lies and revolution are the norm.
As with so many things these days, when is enough yet enough? When does political life stop being a game and become something far more important? How and when does the great American Middle – the Middle that still knows what respect and thoughtful discussion entails – stand up and say STOP. Whether the 20120 election sends a corrective message or aggravates an already intolerable situation remains to be seen. Likely, “the message” will be in the ear of the congressional listener, interpreted not as a “voice of the people” but a “voice of the people I choose to hear that already agree with me.”
The inflammatory rhetoric will likely continue. The talk of “doing the people’s business” will likely dissolve into “doing our political business as usual.” Disrespectful, non-compromising non-relationships will likely continue as people seek their own agenda over any legitimate goals and needs of others. The art of reaching out, finding common ground, and making progress within a greater good rather than a selfish good, will struggle to not become a disappearing art. Fox News chief Roger Ailes told his broadcasters to “Shut up, tone it down, make your arguments intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.” But will this edict last after all the memorial services are over? Only 24-hours later it was questionable. Ailes also said that “Both sides (the right and left) are wrong, but they both do it.” He is right about that: proper conduct is a personal thing, and no one political group owns it. Congress observed a moment of silence in respect for the shooting victims; perhaps an hour of silent reflection would be more meaningful and effective?
It may never be able to be proved that this latest shooter actually saw Sarah Palin’s website, and so saw his congresswoman in a rifle’s crosshair sight. He may never have specifically heard Michelle Bachman talk about “Obama Nazi youth camps” or Palin’s “death panels.” He may not have heard the numerous other voices using the branded code words like “Obama-care” (Republicans) or “Socialist agenda” (Gingrich); he may not have read the many websites claiming that our freedoms are endangered and must be defended – implicitly or explicitly by violent resistance. But he clearly lives, as do we, in a place where fear and anger increasingly surround us every day in our news and in our “entertainment,” and in a Facebook world built upon a need for individual attention if not notoriety. Regardless of where the shooter’s obsession with Giffords came from, we have taught our crazies all too well and frequently that the release of their angers and achievement of their need for attention is in mass shootings – from whence the cameras and news media will come; anonymity will give way to infamy.
Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting will soon move to a distant memory, like all the other shooting victims before her. Her shooter will have his 15 minutes of non-stop attention that he could not get otherwise. An unfortunate number of people offering prayers today will shortly go back to their lies and hateful words. Business as usual will return all too soon. Will any lasting lessons have been learned?
Words Matter.
The reality is that our current environment of fear and anger is ugly. Too many blatantly contribute to this directly through their media role, or in a political role that gives them access to that media. Supposedly “responsible mainstream media” who allow this environment to continue without complaint nor exposing it to truth share responsibility for this environment.
But we are equally responsible when we buy into this misinformation, and make these “fakers of fear” into perverted celebrities of would-be truth. It is our job to speak out against this dangerous climate, and the dangerous people who hide behind soft words, nice appearances, cutesy smiles and simpleton statements. In each of our own little corners of the universe, we are obligated to model right speech in right relationships with our neighbor – and chastise those who do not. If our leaders cannot lead us to where we need to go, then we need to lead ourselves in right directions through right conduct. Then, hopefully, our leaders will find us and follow.
Words Matter. We always have the power to choose the words that we speak, and the speakers that we listen to. Finding the right words begins, as it always does, at home, with ourselves.
Last week, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was wounded while conducting a street-side open house with her constituents. Six people in attendance were killed, including a senior federal judge and one of Gifford’s aides, and 13 were wounded. Another angry, loony shooter – whose name I intentionally refuse to state here –has once again captured headlines and left us shaking our collective heads.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who spent most of the last year being a most hateful person in word, demeanor and action, offered (empty) condolences to Giffords and the many families. In contrast, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (of Giffords’ home county) spoke truth to power and called out what we truly know. He observed that, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government: the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, never able to let respectful silence go by unfilled, said that, “we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” But in her statement, Mrs. Palin took no responsibility for helping to create the environment of violence in which politics now operates. However, the image on her website of Congresswoman Giffords’ house district which showed an “X” target in the crosshairs of a gun sight was quickly deleted. Just a coincidence of timing, I am sure. Palin subsequently posted a video defending herself against accusations that her words had contributed to this situation, but then went on to use inflammatory words against those she felt used inflammatory words. There are times when plain silence is the best response.
Words Matter.
I have decried before the cavalier manner in which too many people will say anything, and often do so in violent imagery, for personal fame and gain. Black congressmen walking into the Capitol building to vote for health care reform were subjected to a gauntlet of racial slurs; gun-toting protestors showed up at political rallies; screamers dominated political meetings; public officials have been threatened or their offices broken into; a congressman was treated as a hero for yelling “you lie” at the President in an official State of the Union address. This last year in politics has been tortuous to observe, and an embarrassment to our supposed moral and political leadership role in the world. There have been times when it has felt like we are living in some 3rd- or 4th- world backward country in which violence, lies and revolution are the norm.
As with so many things these days, when is enough yet enough? When does political life stop being a game and become something far more important? How and when does the great American Middle – the Middle that still knows what respect and thoughtful discussion entails – stand up and say STOP. Whether the 20120 election sends a corrective message or aggravates an already intolerable situation remains to be seen. Likely, “the message” will be in the ear of the congressional listener, interpreted not as a “voice of the people” but a “voice of the people I choose to hear that already agree with me.”
The inflammatory rhetoric will likely continue. The talk of “doing the people’s business” will likely dissolve into “doing our political business as usual.” Disrespectful, non-compromising non-relationships will likely continue as people seek their own agenda over any legitimate goals and needs of others. The art of reaching out, finding common ground, and making progress within a greater good rather than a selfish good, will struggle to not become a disappearing art. Fox News chief Roger Ailes told his broadcasters to “Shut up, tone it down, make your arguments intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.” But will this edict last after all the memorial services are over? Only 24-hours later it was questionable. Ailes also said that “Both sides (the right and left) are wrong, but they both do it.” He is right about that: proper conduct is a personal thing, and no one political group owns it. Congress observed a moment of silence in respect for the shooting victims; perhaps an hour of silent reflection would be more meaningful and effective?
It may never be able to be proved that this latest shooter actually saw Sarah Palin’s website, and so saw his congresswoman in a rifle’s crosshair sight. He may never have specifically heard Michelle Bachman talk about “Obama Nazi youth camps” or Palin’s “death panels.” He may not have heard the numerous other voices using the branded code words like “Obama-care” (Republicans) or “Socialist agenda” (Gingrich); he may not have read the many websites claiming that our freedoms are endangered and must be defended – implicitly or explicitly by violent resistance. But he clearly lives, as do we, in a place where fear and anger increasingly surround us every day in our news and in our “entertainment,” and in a Facebook world built upon a need for individual attention if not notoriety. Regardless of where the shooter’s obsession with Giffords came from, we have taught our crazies all too well and frequently that the release of their angers and achievement of their need for attention is in mass shootings – from whence the cameras and news media will come; anonymity will give way to infamy.
Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting will soon move to a distant memory, like all the other shooting victims before her. Her shooter will have his 15 minutes of non-stop attention that he could not get otherwise. An unfortunate number of people offering prayers today will shortly go back to their lies and hateful words. Business as usual will return all too soon. Will any lasting lessons have been learned?
Words Matter.
The reality is that our current environment of fear and anger is ugly. Too many blatantly contribute to this directly through their media role, or in a political role that gives them access to that media. Supposedly “responsible mainstream media” who allow this environment to continue without complaint nor exposing it to truth share responsibility for this environment.
But we are equally responsible when we buy into this misinformation, and make these “fakers of fear” into perverted celebrities of would-be truth. It is our job to speak out against this dangerous climate, and the dangerous people who hide behind soft words, nice appearances, cutesy smiles and simpleton statements. In each of our own little corners of the universe, we are obligated to model right speech in right relationships with our neighbor – and chastise those who do not. If our leaders cannot lead us to where we need to go, then we need to lead ourselves in right directions through right conduct. Then, hopefully, our leaders will find us and follow.
Words Matter. We always have the power to choose the words that we speak, and the speakers that we listen to. Finding the right words begins, as it always does, at home, with ourselves.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Religion of War
Remember September 2010? The news stories then were predominantly filled with threats about Americans supposedly under attack from Islam. A proposed Islamic community center in New York City was going to irretrievably disgrace our memorial to 9/11 victims. A media-savvy preacher with 50 congregants in Florida threatened to burn a copy of the Qur’an to protest “godless Islam” – until he accomplished his real goal of international attention. Protests against proposed mosque sites were breaking out around the country – including places where Muslims had been worshipping quietly for years. And, of course, politicians looking for headlines – and their sycophants at Fox News – came out with all kinds of statements that insulted and unnecessarily challenged the religious compassion and tolerance that is part of the best definition of America. Talk about “aiding and abetting the enemy”: we managed to prove that our enemies were exactly right in accusing Americans of being hostile to the Muslim and Arab world.
All of those supposedly relevant and important news stories magically disappeared in the noise of the 2010 midterm elections. But no wonder that they left upwards of 40% of Americans – most of whom have never met a Muslim or read a single word of the Qur’an – distrusting Islam and viewing it as a “religion of war” directed against non-Muslims (and Americans in particular). Who can blame them when we read the following examples of calls to violence from supposedly religious scripture:
1. “They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level with them. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of God; if they turn back to enmity, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or those who come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had God willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you, So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, God alloweth you no way against them. Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you, nor offer you peace, nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever you find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.”
2. “[For the wicked and deceitful who are against me] … let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out … As he clothed himself with cursing like as his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones ... Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul.”
3. “… ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other God; for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”
4. “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bounds, and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance).”
5. “It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect … I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet. For thou has girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not. Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.”
These are certainly very violent images, ones that should give all peace-seeking peoples concern. It is understandable that we would reject those who advocate such violence in the name of the religious promotion of one faith over others. Yet exactly who is it that we are to reject?
Examples 1 and 4 above are God’s words through Muhammad in the Qur’an. But examples 2 & 5 are verses from the Psalms, typically portrayed as some of the best poetry to God found in the Old Testament. Example #3 is God’s word through Moses to destroy non-believers. So towards what peoples, what faiths, are we to target our resistance, focus our rejection, marshal our defenses against religious violence?
Virtually all religions were born in violence and persecution, requiring a vigorous defense to survive. Various Hebrew kings, Muhammad, and others fought to birth and nourish their religions. Yet killing and warfare are easily addictive. From such a violent birth, how do we know when it is time to stop fighting, to avoid crossing the line from religious defense into earthly aggression?
Jesus asked us to “love our enemies as ourselves”; God spoke through Muhammad to admonish Muslims to “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” Yet millions of people have been persecuted and died as local cultures and man’s ego have perverted God’s messages into mankind’s pursuit of wealth, power, geography or revenge for all kinds of self-justified reasons. When we are truly threatened, we must resist such actions upon us. But “As we resist the action, we must still love the person.” (Dalai Lama)
In our religious texts and in our own minds, we can find justification for anything we do if we start with our self-serving intention and work backwards. Any religion – Christian, Jewish, Islam – can be rationalized into violence by a precise selection of code words, fueled by ambition towards personal power. It is in the overriding spirit of our faiths where there is moral consistency across all beliefs – a spirit of unthreatened confidence in all beings, a knowledge that real Truth needs no forced rationalizations. Right versus wrong is known in all our hearts intuitively if we just listen quietly to that intuition. And Right is the same for all of us, however differently our faiths may express it.
All of those supposedly relevant and important news stories magically disappeared in the noise of the 2010 midterm elections. But no wonder that they left upwards of 40% of Americans – most of whom have never met a Muslim or read a single word of the Qur’an – distrusting Islam and viewing it as a “religion of war” directed against non-Muslims (and Americans in particular). Who can blame them when we read the following examples of calls to violence from supposedly religious scripture:
1. “They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level with them. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of God; if they turn back to enmity, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or those who come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had God willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you, So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, God alloweth you no way against them. Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you, nor offer you peace, nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever you find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.”
2. “[For the wicked and deceitful who are against me] … let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out … As he clothed himself with cursing like as his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones ... Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul.”
3. “… ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other God; for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”
4. “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bounds, and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance).”
5. “It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect … I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet. For thou has girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not. Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.”
These are certainly very violent images, ones that should give all peace-seeking peoples concern. It is understandable that we would reject those who advocate such violence in the name of the religious promotion of one faith over others. Yet exactly who is it that we are to reject?
Examples 1 and 4 above are God’s words through Muhammad in the Qur’an. But examples 2 & 5 are verses from the Psalms, typically portrayed as some of the best poetry to God found in the Old Testament. Example #3 is God’s word through Moses to destroy non-believers. So towards what peoples, what faiths, are we to target our resistance, focus our rejection, marshal our defenses against religious violence?
Virtually all religions were born in violence and persecution, requiring a vigorous defense to survive. Various Hebrew kings, Muhammad, and others fought to birth and nourish their religions. Yet killing and warfare are easily addictive. From such a violent birth, how do we know when it is time to stop fighting, to avoid crossing the line from religious defense into earthly aggression?
Jesus asked us to “love our enemies as ourselves”; God spoke through Muhammad to admonish Muslims to “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” Yet millions of people have been persecuted and died as local cultures and man’s ego have perverted God’s messages into mankind’s pursuit of wealth, power, geography or revenge for all kinds of self-justified reasons. When we are truly threatened, we must resist such actions upon us. But “As we resist the action, we must still love the person.” (Dalai Lama)
In our religious texts and in our own minds, we can find justification for anything we do if we start with our self-serving intention and work backwards. Any religion – Christian, Jewish, Islam – can be rationalized into violence by a precise selection of code words, fueled by ambition towards personal power. It is in the overriding spirit of our faiths where there is moral consistency across all beliefs – a spirit of unthreatened confidence in all beings, a knowledge that real Truth needs no forced rationalizations. Right versus wrong is known in all our hearts intuitively if we just listen quietly to that intuition. And Right is the same for all of us, however differently our faiths may express it.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Headlines Are Not News
I recently signed on to my online browser, and was greeted with a breaking top news headline that said, “Federal Judge Rules Health Care Law Unconstitutional.” Considering all the time and effort that went into creating and passing this bill, a decision to nullify it would seem a significant and noteworthy news event. So I chose to read on.
As it turns out, buried down in the heart of the story were three extremely important clarifications (corrections?) of that headline:
1. The federal judge who ruled on this case only deemed one portion of the bill unconstitutional – namely that portion that mandates that everyone buy health insurance as of 2014;
2. This Virginia-based federal judge ruled in one lawsuit brought solely by the Virginia Attorney General (an AG who has on repeated occasions shown questionable judgment in his ability to distinguish between his personal political agenda and his broader obligations as Virginia’s chief legal officer), so the result of the judge’s decision would only affect the citizens of Virginia;
3. Nationally, 12 other federal judges have already previously dismissed out-of-hand similar state-brought lawsuits as without merit; two other federal judges who did elect to hear such cases both ruled the law constitutional. So the more correct box score now reads: 14 individual judges have approved the law; one has not.
We all know that, in this highly politicized climate, the Obama health care law will ultimately wind up in the Supreme Court. That event is still years away, moving through all kinds of interim legal and political wrangles and the various court jurisdictions and levels. Once it arrives in the laps of Chief Justice Roberts & Company, it is anyone’s guess what will then happen. But that is for later. So in the broader context of “legal process,” yes, the Virginia decision was noteworthy, but nowhere near decisive – contrary to the impression created by that news headline.
Unfortunately, this more balanced, more complete perspective of the Virginia ruling got completely lost in most all news reporting of that day. The “unconstitutional” headline statement ran unchanged in most all other reporting media – both online as well as cable and network news programs, including the little “news ticker” that runs across the bottom of our TV screens.
News headline writing is a uniquely creative art form. Headlines are typically not written by the author of the in-depth article but by a separate person supposedly skilled in collapsing and highlighting an entire story into perhaps less than ½-dozen words, all without distorting the story itself. It is not an easy task. The author may in fact never even see the headline prior to publication, usually with no opportunity given to comment on or edit it. I am sympathetic to those who perform this challenging and necessary task. But I am more concerned about readers who come away from a headline with a wrong or significantly incomplete understanding of the underlying news. It is similar challenge that television guide editors face in seeking to describe an entire movie plot line in 3-4 words, often with laughable results – e.g. Gone With The Wind (“Woman saves her home”), or The Wizard of Oz (“Girl leaves Kansas”). But however difficult the challenge, the news headline – designed to both get our attention and to entice the reading of the full report – must be subject to the same standards of accuracy and objectivity as we expect from the story itself. In this instance, that standard was not met on what is acknowledged is a critical and emotional subject in America.
We are bombarded today by far more news, or opinion masquerading as news, or “news” that we should have no interest in, than we can possibly absorb. (How many Lindsay Lohan or Mel Gibson stories do we have to read before we can comfortably conclude that these are two significantly troubled people?) In our self-defense of this onslaught, more and more of us must scan the news in order to just stay marginally aware of what is happening around us. In times past, leisurely reading the morning and/or evening newspaper at the breakfast table or after dinner was part of our daily routine. Today we have very little time available to read full news reports from start to end, much less to then think and reflect on what we have read.
Nevertheless, the responsibility remains ours for staying properly informed, and basing our opinions on substantive and well-reasoned information. We need to pick our information sources wisely; differentiate between reporting, versus informed opinion, versus soapbox self-promoting demagoguery; and continually remind ourselves that when we “scan” the headlines, we only see a list of topics that we may need to follow up on. Good headline writing can help us with our task of being informed. There is input in a news headline, but there is clearly no knowledge therein. Gleaning knowledge, and from that wisdom, is still our job to do.
As it turns out, buried down in the heart of the story were three extremely important clarifications (corrections?) of that headline:
1. The federal judge who ruled on this case only deemed one portion of the bill unconstitutional – namely that portion that mandates that everyone buy health insurance as of 2014;
2. This Virginia-based federal judge ruled in one lawsuit brought solely by the Virginia Attorney General (an AG who has on repeated occasions shown questionable judgment in his ability to distinguish between his personal political agenda and his broader obligations as Virginia’s chief legal officer), so the result of the judge’s decision would only affect the citizens of Virginia;
3. Nationally, 12 other federal judges have already previously dismissed out-of-hand similar state-brought lawsuits as without merit; two other federal judges who did elect to hear such cases both ruled the law constitutional. So the more correct box score now reads: 14 individual judges have approved the law; one has not.
We all know that, in this highly politicized climate, the Obama health care law will ultimately wind up in the Supreme Court. That event is still years away, moving through all kinds of interim legal and political wrangles and the various court jurisdictions and levels. Once it arrives in the laps of Chief Justice Roberts & Company, it is anyone’s guess what will then happen. But that is for later. So in the broader context of “legal process,” yes, the Virginia decision was noteworthy, but nowhere near decisive – contrary to the impression created by that news headline.
Unfortunately, this more balanced, more complete perspective of the Virginia ruling got completely lost in most all news reporting of that day. The “unconstitutional” headline statement ran unchanged in most all other reporting media – both online as well as cable and network news programs, including the little “news ticker” that runs across the bottom of our TV screens.
News headline writing is a uniquely creative art form. Headlines are typically not written by the author of the in-depth article but by a separate person supposedly skilled in collapsing and highlighting an entire story into perhaps less than ½-dozen words, all without distorting the story itself. It is not an easy task. The author may in fact never even see the headline prior to publication, usually with no opportunity given to comment on or edit it. I am sympathetic to those who perform this challenging and necessary task. But I am more concerned about readers who come away from a headline with a wrong or significantly incomplete understanding of the underlying news. It is similar challenge that television guide editors face in seeking to describe an entire movie plot line in 3-4 words, often with laughable results – e.g. Gone With The Wind (“Woman saves her home”), or The Wizard of Oz (“Girl leaves Kansas”). But however difficult the challenge, the news headline – designed to both get our attention and to entice the reading of the full report – must be subject to the same standards of accuracy and objectivity as we expect from the story itself. In this instance, that standard was not met on what is acknowledged is a critical and emotional subject in America.
We are bombarded today by far more news, or opinion masquerading as news, or “news” that we should have no interest in, than we can possibly absorb. (How many Lindsay Lohan or Mel Gibson stories do we have to read before we can comfortably conclude that these are two significantly troubled people?) In our self-defense of this onslaught, more and more of us must scan the news in order to just stay marginally aware of what is happening around us. In times past, leisurely reading the morning and/or evening newspaper at the breakfast table or after dinner was part of our daily routine. Today we have very little time available to read full news reports from start to end, much less to then think and reflect on what we have read.
Nevertheless, the responsibility remains ours for staying properly informed, and basing our opinions on substantive and well-reasoned information. We need to pick our information sources wisely; differentiate between reporting, versus informed opinion, versus soapbox self-promoting demagoguery; and continually remind ourselves that when we “scan” the headlines, we only see a list of topics that we may need to follow up on. Good headline writing can help us with our task of being informed. There is input in a news headline, but there is clearly no knowledge therein. Gleaning knowledge, and from that wisdom, is still our job to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)