There's been a lot going on since I last posted to this blog.
My wife and I found out we are expecting.
We found out it is a girl (or very likely a girl, if ultrasound pictures are indicative).
I found out I have Type II Diabetes. After beginning three medications, I have some control over my blood-sugar.
The Hawkeyes have lost four football games. Usually that takes about 22 months for that to happen, not seven.
A friend was killed instantly when struck by lightning.
Peter Jennings died.
Rosa Parks died.
Three major hurricanes hit the United States.
So you see, there is a lot of life and death in the world. And it was damn near overwhelming for this 38-year-old. I mean, when you do the Math, it is beyond remotely possible that I have already lived out over half my life (how many overweight diabetics see 76?). And it feels like I'm down two TD's at the half, and it could be worse except my boys scored late to make it closer (they get points just for being).
So it has been a lot to ruminate upon, in recent days. So when politics pops up, it isn't the big big deal it once was.
Actually, it's bigger.
See, it's actually more important for me, because it's a process that is shaping not just my future, but the future for my children, and their children, and future generations everywhere. It's the future of humanity.
Now, don't get me wrong here. In many ways, it is much less important. It is not so important because I don't need to get angry about what I see as injustice. I don't need outrage to formulate my opinions and associations. I don't need politics to justify my existence. And I surely don't feel the need to indulge in a little Schottenfruede over the meltdown on the political right.
But it is more important, in that I see now how I can, and must, engage in the public dialogue (is there such a thing as a multi-logue?) for my own future, and for my children. Too much is at stake not to get involved. It is perfectly justifiable to care, and care deeply, about the direction my community and country are going.
So yes, I still care, quite a bit. But I am no longer beholden to politics for my identity.
I'm willing to be a partner with politics. I won't be a co-dependent.
There's too much else to live for, anyway.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The Grace Of God
Terry Schiavo has died.
It has been a couple weeks now, and it seems there is no longer the fuss about this event than there was when she was still alive. Or at least still breathing.
There's a difference, see. At least I think there is. While the body can still function when the brain and higher-order cognitive abilities have been severely reduced or ended outright, there is no longer a way for a person to really live. You know, stop 'n' smell the roses stuff.
See a good movie, walk barefoot in the park, hold a child's hand as you cross the street. Those things are gone. Throwing Frisbee to the dog, hearing the cat purr, letting a horse gallop. Tasting a good steak, enjoying the smell of fresh-baked bread, feeling the burn at the end of a workout. All this, and many other less clichéd experiences, will no longer be possible for Terry Schiavo. But that's nothing new.
None of this has been possible for her since 1990. In a bad situation, dealing with an eating disorder, she succumbed to a potassium imbalance that left her brain irrevocably damaged from oxygen deprivation. There would be no miracle. She was not getting better.
This issue is about more than physical life and death. Let's be honest, it's really about spiritual life and death. The debate can only exist in the context of human spirituality. Without souls, we are no more than tasty meat for gators and bears. Actually not even that; human meat is not so good, or so I've heard. So we'll assume we're talking about souls here. Souls of people who can swallow their food, and of those who can't. That's why Terry Schiavo has a feeding tube, and why Michael Schiavo wants to remove it.
But is it killing her? When she could be kept "alive" by simply squirting paste through a tube embedded in her abdomen, is it unreasonable to demand that it must be done? It doesn't seem so, simply because her soul is in danger.
Right.
As if God doesn't know what to do with Terry Schiavo's soul. He sent Jesus for redemption of all our sins, but still requires certain religious ritual upon our deaths. The fact is, God will and has already taken care of it. Oh, and he also knows how to deal with the souls of the "unborn," too. This isn't his first day on the job.
If Terry Schiavo's spiritual death was back in 1990, then God has her soul and her body is nothing but an empty mortal shell worth about $1.98 in chemical components.
If her spiritual death can't happen until her last breath, then her soul has been trapped for fourteen years in a unique and total hell. In this case, there is no way to see her physical death as anything but a liberation of her soul.
Either way, it's about trusting God.
That, and preserving the real sanctity of marriage. The sanctity that comes from someone putting all their trust in another human being to take compassionate care of her when she can't do it herself. The sanctity that says, whatever you do, I believe you do it for my best interest, and I love and support and forgive you for all your actions on my part, now and for all time, even when I am gone.
I don't pray that God will welcome Tery Schiavo into his eternal love. I thank and praise him for having done it. And for being patient with those of us who would make Him and Terry wait.
It has been a couple weeks now, and it seems there is no longer the fuss about this event than there was when she was still alive. Or at least still breathing.
There's a difference, see. At least I think there is. While the body can still function when the brain and higher-order cognitive abilities have been severely reduced or ended outright, there is no longer a way for a person to really live. You know, stop 'n' smell the roses stuff.
See a good movie, walk barefoot in the park, hold a child's hand as you cross the street. Those things are gone. Throwing Frisbee to the dog, hearing the cat purr, letting a horse gallop. Tasting a good steak, enjoying the smell of fresh-baked bread, feeling the burn at the end of a workout. All this, and many other less clichéd experiences, will no longer be possible for Terry Schiavo. But that's nothing new.
None of this has been possible for her since 1990. In a bad situation, dealing with an eating disorder, she succumbed to a potassium imbalance that left her brain irrevocably damaged from oxygen deprivation. There would be no miracle. She was not getting better.
This issue is about more than physical life and death. Let's be honest, it's really about spiritual life and death. The debate can only exist in the context of human spirituality. Without souls, we are no more than tasty meat for gators and bears. Actually not even that; human meat is not so good, or so I've heard. So we'll assume we're talking about souls here. Souls of people who can swallow their food, and of those who can't. That's why Terry Schiavo has a feeding tube, and why Michael Schiavo wants to remove it.
But is it killing her? When she could be kept "alive" by simply squirting paste through a tube embedded in her abdomen, is it unreasonable to demand that it must be done? It doesn't seem so, simply because her soul is in danger.
Right.
As if God doesn't know what to do with Terry Schiavo's soul. He sent Jesus for redemption of all our sins, but still requires certain religious ritual upon our deaths. The fact is, God will and has already taken care of it. Oh, and he also knows how to deal with the souls of the "unborn," too. This isn't his first day on the job.
If Terry Schiavo's spiritual death was back in 1990, then God has her soul and her body is nothing but an empty mortal shell worth about $1.98 in chemical components.
If her spiritual death can't happen until her last breath, then her soul has been trapped for fourteen years in a unique and total hell. In this case, there is no way to see her physical death as anything but a liberation of her soul.
Either way, it's about trusting God.
That, and preserving the real sanctity of marriage. The sanctity that comes from someone putting all their trust in another human being to take compassionate care of her when she can't do it herself. The sanctity that says, whatever you do, I believe you do it for my best interest, and I love and support and forgive you for all your actions on my part, now and for all time, even when I am gone.
I don't pray that God will welcome Tery Schiavo into his eternal love. I thank and praise him for having done it. And for being patient with those of us who would make Him and Terry wait.
Friday, March 11, 2005
The Social Security Shell Game
At the core, the arguement for Social Security reform goes like this:
See, Right now Social Security runs a surplus. That means, in 2005, more money comes in than goes out. This will be the gradually diminishing case until 2018 or so, when the Baby Boomers begin to retire and collect, and then the program will run deficits until 2052, and will offset the costs using the substantial ($1.7 trillion) surplus built up between 1935 and 2018. The surplus will run out in 2052 (or thereabouts). The money brought in then will only be able to cover about 75% of the level of current benefits. And this is all based on maintaining current benefit and Social Security withholding levels (that's 7.5% of your income up to a $90,000 cap). If benefits were reduced even the slightest bit, or the cap raised by an amount consistent with inflation levels, this would put the program into solvency into the 22nd Century.
As we are seeing an America more prosperous and healthy than at any time in history, it could just be that retired persons will rely less on Social Security income than in the past, and also that they will be living longer, and working longer, and that "retirement age" has already or will eventually reach 68 or 70 years. Remember, Social Security was initially created to alleviate a crisis of poverty among the elderly of America, and has succeeded immensely in that charge. That's why the system is faced with budget issues in the first place. But Social Security is still enormously essential to ensure that the U. S. does not revert to the poverty of the past.
Now, it doesnt take much calculation to figure out that very small changes now will make great advancements in Social Security solvency in 2052 and beyond. See, as currently run, even when the money runs out, Social Security revenues are still able to cover 75% of the costs in 2053, 2060, 2090, and beyond. So changes now only need account for that other 25% that is still well off in the distance. We're talking about benefit reductions or withholding increases of about 2% over current levels. Less than it costs to feed Sally Struthers.
But the folks at the White House, and their right-wing news cronies would have you believe that the sky is falling. They say the government should not be allowed to invest the people's money. But Social Security is not an investment strategy, that's what a 401(k) or a Roth IRA are for. Social Security is a societal safety net, that ensures that old people don't have to scrounge through garbage cans for clothes and food. If it costs me 7.5% of my income (matched by my employer), most of which I get back when I'm old and hungry, I'm okay with that. Besides, it's two relatives I don't have to care for (and soon four more, as my parents and in-laws are all near 60). And all my older relatives have retirement investments in addition to Social Security, because they knew forty years ago that they would need more to live beyond a basic existence in the golden years. And I invest for retirement too, because I know I want more out of retirement, and the chance to leave something for my kids, if I'm gone. And not in lieu of Social Security, but in addition to it. So I've got my alloted piece of the social pie, and my extra slice I planned for before I came to the picnic.
And how unreliable is Social Security as an investment (which, remember, it's actually not)? The surplus $1.7 trillion (that's $1700 billion) is held in the form of specially issued Treasury Bonds. They make a modest return, but are backed by the United States government, so they are as good as gold. But the White House crowd wants people to believe that these are just IOU's that have no real value. Here's the disconnect: if these "IOU's" are as potentially worthless as the administration claims, then Americans should have no faith in the U. S. economy, because the U. S. would have to default on $1.7 trillion in bonds for this to be true. And if that happens, the last place I would want my money is in the stock market.
Which is where they propose the privatized Social Security money goes.
I know, in the title of this post I likened the Bush Social Security plan to a shell game, but I was incorrect. It's really Three-Card Monte.
Social Security is running out of money! It will go broke, and very soon! We must fix the problem! We'll have to privatize the funds! The people know better than government how to invest their money! We'll still have to reduce benefits, but this will help in the long run!The trouble is, it's just not true. Well, the giong broke thing is true, if you consider 2052 to be "very soon." But the rest doesn't play.
See, Right now Social Security runs a surplus. That means, in 2005, more money comes in than goes out. This will be the gradually diminishing case until 2018 or so, when the Baby Boomers begin to retire and collect, and then the program will run deficits until 2052, and will offset the costs using the substantial ($1.7 trillion) surplus built up between 1935 and 2018. The surplus will run out in 2052 (or thereabouts). The money brought in then will only be able to cover about 75% of the level of current benefits. And this is all based on maintaining current benefit and Social Security withholding levels (that's 7.5% of your income up to a $90,000 cap). If benefits were reduced even the slightest bit, or the cap raised by an amount consistent with inflation levels, this would put the program into solvency into the 22nd Century.
As we are seeing an America more prosperous and healthy than at any time in history, it could just be that retired persons will rely less on Social Security income than in the past, and also that they will be living longer, and working longer, and that "retirement age" has already or will eventually reach 68 or 70 years. Remember, Social Security was initially created to alleviate a crisis of poverty among the elderly of America, and has succeeded immensely in that charge. That's why the system is faced with budget issues in the first place. But Social Security is still enormously essential to ensure that the U. S. does not revert to the poverty of the past.
Now, it doesnt take much calculation to figure out that very small changes now will make great advancements in Social Security solvency in 2052 and beyond. See, as currently run, even when the money runs out, Social Security revenues are still able to cover 75% of the costs in 2053, 2060, 2090, and beyond. So changes now only need account for that other 25% that is still well off in the distance. We're talking about benefit reductions or withholding increases of about 2% over current levels. Less than it costs to feed Sally Struthers.
But the folks at the White House, and their right-wing news cronies would have you believe that the sky is falling. They say the government should not be allowed to invest the people's money. But Social Security is not an investment strategy, that's what a 401(k) or a Roth IRA are for. Social Security is a societal safety net, that ensures that old people don't have to scrounge through garbage cans for clothes and food. If it costs me 7.5% of my income (matched by my employer), most of which I get back when I'm old and hungry, I'm okay with that. Besides, it's two relatives I don't have to care for (and soon four more, as my parents and in-laws are all near 60). And all my older relatives have retirement investments in addition to Social Security, because they knew forty years ago that they would need more to live beyond a basic existence in the golden years. And I invest for retirement too, because I know I want more out of retirement, and the chance to leave something for my kids, if I'm gone. And not in lieu of Social Security, but in addition to it. So I've got my alloted piece of the social pie, and my extra slice I planned for before I came to the picnic.
And how unreliable is Social Security as an investment (which, remember, it's actually not)? The surplus $1.7 trillion (that's $1700 billion) is held in the form of specially issued Treasury Bonds. They make a modest return, but are backed by the United States government, so they are as good as gold. But the White House crowd wants people to believe that these are just IOU's that have no real value. Here's the disconnect: if these "IOU's" are as potentially worthless as the administration claims, then Americans should have no faith in the U. S. economy, because the U. S. would have to default on $1.7 trillion in bonds for this to be true. And if that happens, the last place I would want my money is in the stock market.
Which is where they propose the privatized Social Security money goes.
I know, in the title of this post I likened the Bush Social Security plan to a shell game, but I was incorrect. It's really Three-Card Monte.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Did You Happen To Catch Page Three?
In your paper, it would likely be even further buried. Maybe next to the comics.
"What could be buried in my local paper?" you ask.
The news that one of the Madrid Subway bombers had sketches of Grand Central Station.
You'd think this would bump the terr-o-meter into the orange. Think again.
It seems that this would have been the big story on all the news outlets, had it happened back in October. You know, before the election.
But this week it gets buried.
Ask yourself why.
For those who did not adhere to that last request, I will go ahead and give you the answer.
Fear provokes re-election. Fear erodes legacy.
Since it's no longer necessary to scare the American public, save the effort.
What a flip-flop.
"What could be buried in my local paper?" you ask.
The news that one of the Madrid Subway bombers had sketches of Grand Central Station.
You'd think this would bump the terr-o-meter into the orange. Think again.
It seems that this would have been the big story on all the news outlets, had it happened back in October. You know, before the election.
But this week it gets buried.
Ask yourself why.
For those who did not adhere to that last request, I will go ahead and give you the answer.
Fear provokes re-election. Fear erodes legacy.
Since it's no longer necessary to scare the American public, save the effort.
What a flip-flop.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair
I firmly believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in what it stands for. I believe in the core values of liberalism, with pragmatism added for flavor. I see where the Democratic Party is headed. I see the cliff the GOP would have America run over.
But I also think the Democratic Party is paralyzed by the past-based, static-oriented "old-think" of the party leadership, including the DNC. The failure to articulate the progressive vision the Democratic Party holds for this nation has cost America too much to continue. New leadership must be commissioned.
There has been a big debate about how the Democratic Party must realign to win elections in America. More to the left? To the right? Not at all? This discussion is powerless and irrelevant. None of these things will work for the Dems. Position doesn't matter. Connection matters.
President Bush and the GOP Congressional majority didn't get there by having a better position. They got there by connecting to people. Their ideas didn't sway the electorate, their authenticity (or perception thereof) did. Voters don't care about positions, they want to trust those for whom they vote.
There is a candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who sees this, and has a plan to return the trust back to the Democratic Party. Donnie Fowler for Chair of the DNC.
If you want to know what he has to say, you can find it here.
But I also think the Democratic Party is paralyzed by the past-based, static-oriented "old-think" of the party leadership, including the DNC. The failure to articulate the progressive vision the Democratic Party holds for this nation has cost America too much to continue. New leadership must be commissioned.
There has been a big debate about how the Democratic Party must realign to win elections in America. More to the left? To the right? Not at all? This discussion is powerless and irrelevant. None of these things will work for the Dems. Position doesn't matter. Connection matters.
President Bush and the GOP Congressional majority didn't get there by having a better position. They got there by connecting to people. Their ideas didn't sway the electorate, their authenticity (or perception thereof) did. Voters don't care about positions, they want to trust those for whom they vote.
There is a candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who sees this, and has a plan to return the trust back to the Democratic Party. Donnie Fowler for Chair of the DNC.
If you want to know what he has to say, you can find it here.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Checking back in after the holidays
Sorry for neglecting my post over the academic break.
I just want to say something about Equal Protection of the Law. I support and stand by the legal and Constitutional protection provided in the United States Constitution regarding Equal Protection of Law. Here's what it says in the 14th Amendment regarding Equal Protection:
Mental rumination may now begin. Consider these questions:
I just want to say something about Equal Protection of the Law. I support and stand by the legal and Constitutional protection provided in the United States Constitution regarding Equal Protection of Law. Here's what it says in the 14th Amendment regarding Equal Protection:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mental rumination may now begin. Consider these questions:
What does this mean for Sanctity of Marriage laws?For anyone who needs a refresher, here is the language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
What are the implications for detaining Americans based on racial or ethnic profiling?
How can Justice Scalia use this as the basis for ending legally mandated recounts in Florida in 2000?
In concert with the voting rights act of 1965, how does this affect the certification of elections where certain precincts had limited access to voting?
AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.Consider: were standards, practices, or procedures applied in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 which denied or abridged the right to vote to any person based on race or color? Were standards, practices, or procedures used in Florida or Ohio that did not provide Equal Protection as set in the 14th Amendment, or that denied Equal Protection as it applies in the 15th Amendment?
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)