Few Catholics, including those of us retired from the institution, know how to understand or deal with the current world-wide meltdown of the Catholic Church. Yet, we Americans have seen similar meltdowns in our recent political lifetime and even in times past.
To be more precise, when I was running PR for the Verizon System, I learned and practiced the first rule of public relations survival.
That rule is " When things go wrong, tell it FIRST, FAST AND FULLY.
Unfortunately, people like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton either never learned it or forgot it and in the end it cost them their presidencies. The cover up is almost always worse than the offense.
How does the Catholic Church believe it can survive the Tsunami about to wash over it without coming clean? As importantly, what is this breach of trust all about?
Please read Sister Joan Chittister, OSB's opinion reprinted below. Sr. Joan is a Benedictine nun who has been in the forefront of speaking out on issues regardless of the consequences. Because of her international standing as author and lecturer on peace, justice, spirituality and women's issues, she has not been squelched.
"Divided loyalties: an incredible situation
By Joan Chittister
Created Mar 17, 2010
For all the certainty about the facts of the case, there is still an aura of discontent everywhere about the situation surrounding clerical sex abuse in the church. No one disputes the data now; everyone disputes the nature of the problem. And worse than that, the data simply keeps piling up on all sides.
First, the world called it an "American problem." As in, those Americans are a wild bunch anyway, what else can you expect?" The Vatican went so far as to dismiss the issue as simply another demonstration of American exaggeration -- what the Irish call the American tendency to be "over the top."
Then Ireland found itself engulfed in the problem and suddenly the outrage was no longer seen as "over the top." On the contrary, it became a display of integrity. Nor were the numbers seen as being exaggerated by the media. On the contrary, the numbers of child victims, the world began to understand, had, if anything, been minimized.
Now, the boil has broken in Europe, too: in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Germany, and, oh yes, in the Vatican, as well.
Now, the United States is no longer seen as being hysterical about a non-problem but early in its confrontation of it, also a decidedly American trait.
But what, precisely, is "it?" What is the real problem?
Note well: After stories of the first few high-profile cases of serial rapes and molestations and their unheard of numbers died down, the focus shifted away from individual clerical rapists to the unmasking of what was now obviously a systemic problem. This prevailing practice of episcopal cover-ups, of moving offenders from one parish to another rather than expose them either to legal accountability or to moral censure in the public arena, occupied the spotlight. It was a practice that saved the reputation of the church at the expense of children. It traded innocence for image.
But we know all of that. So why doesn't all of this just settle down and go away? Why won't these people -- these survivors -- "just forget about it," some people said.
The answers to that question is both personal and social.
For some, of course, the need to expose their experiences comes out of the need to heal themselves by reclaiming a sense of control over their lives. To stop living in the shadow of victimhood and powerlessness. For others of them, it was because, having had their secret shame exposed, they now found the courage themselves to speak out about the unspeakable ghost that had for so long haunted their lives.
But it is also possible that the survivors go on drawing our attention to the situation because, this time, consciously or unconsciously, they are trying to warn us of a second aspect of the problem, still largely undefined, that is at least as serious -- even the incubator, in fact -- of the obvious issues of cover-up and concealment.
This time, however, it is Ireland, not America, that is ripping away the veil from this even deeper dimension, the one that moves beyond the problems of sexual repression and institutional face-saving. The unmasking of this context requires changes in the church that are in ways more serious -- and certainly as important -- as is the awareness of the danger of the sexual abuse itself.
The dilemma that really threatens the future of the church is a distorted notion of the vow of obedience and the tension it creates between loyalty to the Gospel and loyalty to the institution -- translate: "system."
In this case, the problem swirls around Ireland's Primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, a good man with a good heart and a good reputation. Until now. In 1975, then Fr. Sean Brady, a newly certified canon lawyer and secretary to then Bishop Francis McKiernan, now deceased, in the diocese of Kilmore, took testimony from two young boys abused by the serial rapist Fr. Brendan Smyth. At the end of those interviews, Brady exacted a vow of silence from the boys which effectively protected Smyth from public censure and enabled him to go on abusing children -- including in the United States -- for another 18 years. Brady, too, said nothing to any one about the case, other than to his bishop, ever again. Not to the gardai, not to the courts, not even to the bishops to whose dioceses Smyth had then been sent.
Challenged now to resign because of that failure to give evidence of a crime, Brady's answer is the Nuremberg defense: He was only following orders; he did not have the responsibility to make any reports other than to his bishop; he was only a note-taker. All of these elements of the situation are now in hot dispute.
But the question is deeper than the simple ones of role and organizational responsibility.
The question is why would a good man with a good heart, as he surely is, think twice about his responsibility to take moral and legal steps to stop a child predator from preying on more children everywhere, some of them for years at a time?
The answer to that question is a simple one: It is that the kind of "blind obedience" once theologized as the ultimate step to holiness, is itself blind. It blinds a person to the insights and foresight and moral perspective of anyone other than an authority figure.
Blind obedience is itself an abuse of human morality. It is a misuse of the human soul in the name of religious commitment. It is a sin against individual conscience. It makes moral children of the adults from whom moral agency is required. It makes a vow, which is meant to require religious figures to listen always to the law of God, beholden first to the laws of very human organizations in the person of very human authorities. It is a law that isn't even working in the military and can never substitute for personal morality.
From where I stand, if there are any in whom we should be able to presume a strong conscience and an even stronger commitment to the public welfare, it is surely the priests and religious of the church. But if that is the case, then the church must also review its theology of obedience so that those of good heart can become real moral leaders rather than simply agents of the institution.
A bifurcation of loyalties that requires religious to put canon law above civil law and moral law puts us in a situation where the keepers of religion may themselves become one of the greatest dangers to the credibility -- and the morality -- of the church itself."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Cost and Coverage Reform: the loyal opposition's opinion
As promised, here is the Wall Street Journal's opinion. Before you go on here is a comment from some one from another country:
"I’m not an American (some of those who knows me may add ‘regretfully’… J). Am an Israeli and veteran friend of Laura & Ted (as well as, with other addressees) and as such, I’ve the privilege to be on Ted’s ‘mailing-list’.
Notwithstanding, I’m taking the liberty to share with you guys my feelings.
I feel today that the success of Obama’s Administration (with the House-Speaker’s support…) to pass the Health Reform is an historical event that defined as, no less, than a hilling of the entire ‘Civil Right Legislation’.
By giving a chance to any one to get, at least, a basic Medicare (such as in Israel) we are expressing mercy and humanity.
Yes, the priorities with the budget expenditure might be amended, however, being part of a Society that has a sense of mutual responsibility and brotherhood, seems to be a reasonable price.
To that extent, Ted’s great expression – “The good of everyone equally comes first” is an adequate way to illustrate your achievement for better life.
Happy Passover. Yoav"
CAPITAL JOURNALMARCH 22, 2010
Vast Ambition, Colossal Risk
By GERALD F. SEIB
As a piece of social policy, the health bill passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives ranks up there with the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in ambition and scope. But here's one big difference: The Great Society programs were enacted in an era when Americans still tended to trust the government to get things done.
By contrast, a principal reason the health bill was so hard to get to this point, and the reason it's such a political risk, is that this landmark legislation proposes expanding the government's role in the giant health economy at a time when Americans are far less likely to trust the government to do things right.
President Barack Obama will sign the core legislation into law, and it's likely the Senate will also approve a package of changes to that law, which the House passed Sunday night. But how the legislation is perceived by Americans in both the short term and long run may well depend on whether its advocates—Mr. Obama, his Democratic allies in Congress, a variety of labor and health interest groups—can convince Americans that, at least on this giant issue, the government is up to the task.
At a minimum, Democrats will be trying to show citizens that the government can produce outcomes that are at least superior to the status quo in health care, which almost everybody agrees can't be sustained.
Proponents of the health legislation are quick to point out that it doesn't amount to a government takeover of health care, and they are right. The legislation builds on, rather than replaces, the employer-based health-insurance system that has prevailed in this country for decades. It funnels patients getting government subsidies into private insurance policies and pools, not a government-run health plan, and is at best a small step toward the nationalized health-care system some liberals want.
So in that sense, it's a far more modest exercise in social engineering than was the Great Society program of the mid-1960s, which included legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, the food-stamp program and Head Start, as well as two landmark civil rights acts.
Yet by making the federal government both a much bigger economic player, and a more potent referee, in the private health marketplace, the new health bill represents a similar turn to government action to confront gnawing domestic concerns. What has changed are attitudes toward that government
When President Johnson led the drive to create Medicare and Medicaid, Americans saw before them a government that had won World War II, built the interstate highway system and launched an almost universally admired space program that was headed toward putting a man on the moon. The New Deal was widely considered the reason the Great Depression finally was vanquished. "Liberal" was such a coveted label for a politician that one of President Johnson's deep worries when he took over after President John Kennedy's assassination was that he might be seen in Kennedy circles as too conservative.
Since then, attitudes have soured. The Vietnam War went from nuisance to debacle, tarnishing for a long while the notion that the nation's best and brightest minds were at work in Washington dealing brilliantly with difficult problems.
Later, President Ronald Reagan told us government was the problem rather than the solution, President Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over and President George W. Bush told us the other big piece of the social safety net, Social Security, was better taken out of the government's hands entirely and turned over to the private sector.
More recently, government experts assured the nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a mistaken conclusion with calamitous consequences. Now deficits further sow doubts about Washington.
The result has been an erosion over time in confidence in government's competence. One of the best barometers of that shifting attitude is found in polling done by the Gallup organization, which for four decades has been testing Americans' trust in government. When Gallup asked in 1972 how much Americans trusted the federal government to handle domestic problems, 70% said they had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust. By last year, that had fallen to 51%—almost even with the 48% who said "not very much" trust, or "none at all."
Here's an even starker reading: In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last fall, Americans were asked how much of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing; 65% said "only some of the time," and a stunning 11% said "never."
Can confidence in government be turned around? Perhaps; it seemed to rise briefly in those feel-good moments after President Obama's 2008 election victory.
That's why the Obama administration's ability to competently put health legislation into practice, assuming it becomes law, is so crucial.
On that front Democrats can console themselves with some other history: Medicare itself was viewed as a nearly impossible undertaking, but was implemented smoothly, as was a Medicare prescription-drug benefit signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Maybe, advocates might argue, that shows the government can get some things right after all.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
"I’m not an American (some of those who knows me may add ‘regretfully’… J). Am an Israeli and veteran friend of Laura & Ted (as well as, with other addressees) and as such, I’ve the privilege to be on Ted’s ‘mailing-list’.
Notwithstanding, I’m taking the liberty to share with you guys my feelings.
I feel today that the success of Obama’s Administration (with the House-Speaker’s support…) to pass the Health Reform is an historical event that defined as, no less, than a hilling of the entire ‘Civil Right Legislation’.
By giving a chance to any one to get, at least, a basic Medicare (such as in Israel) we are expressing mercy and humanity.
Yes, the priorities with the budget expenditure might be amended, however, being part of a Society that has a sense of mutual responsibility and brotherhood, seems to be a reasonable price.
To that extent, Ted’s great expression – “The good of everyone equally comes first” is an adequate way to illustrate your achievement for better life.
Happy Passover. Yoav"
CAPITAL JOURNALMARCH 22, 2010
Vast Ambition, Colossal Risk
By GERALD F. SEIB
As a piece of social policy, the health bill passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives ranks up there with the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in ambition and scope. But here's one big difference: The Great Society programs were enacted in an era when Americans still tended to trust the government to get things done.
By contrast, a principal reason the health bill was so hard to get to this point, and the reason it's such a political risk, is that this landmark legislation proposes expanding the government's role in the giant health economy at a time when Americans are far less likely to trust the government to do things right.
President Barack Obama will sign the core legislation into law, and it's likely the Senate will also approve a package of changes to that law, which the House passed Sunday night. But how the legislation is perceived by Americans in both the short term and long run may well depend on whether its advocates—Mr. Obama, his Democratic allies in Congress, a variety of labor and health interest groups—can convince Americans that, at least on this giant issue, the government is up to the task.
At a minimum, Democrats will be trying to show citizens that the government can produce outcomes that are at least superior to the status quo in health care, which almost everybody agrees can't be sustained.
Proponents of the health legislation are quick to point out that it doesn't amount to a government takeover of health care, and they are right. The legislation builds on, rather than replaces, the employer-based health-insurance system that has prevailed in this country for decades. It funnels patients getting government subsidies into private insurance policies and pools, not a government-run health plan, and is at best a small step toward the nationalized health-care system some liberals want.
So in that sense, it's a far more modest exercise in social engineering than was the Great Society program of the mid-1960s, which included legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, the food-stamp program and Head Start, as well as two landmark civil rights acts.
Yet by making the federal government both a much bigger economic player, and a more potent referee, in the private health marketplace, the new health bill represents a similar turn to government action to confront gnawing domestic concerns. What has changed are attitudes toward that government
When President Johnson led the drive to create Medicare and Medicaid, Americans saw before them a government that had won World War II, built the interstate highway system and launched an almost universally admired space program that was headed toward putting a man on the moon. The New Deal was widely considered the reason the Great Depression finally was vanquished. "Liberal" was such a coveted label for a politician that one of President Johnson's deep worries when he took over after President John Kennedy's assassination was that he might be seen in Kennedy circles as too conservative.
Since then, attitudes have soured. The Vietnam War went from nuisance to debacle, tarnishing for a long while the notion that the nation's best and brightest minds were at work in Washington dealing brilliantly with difficult problems.
Later, President Ronald Reagan told us government was the problem rather than the solution, President Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over and President George W. Bush told us the other big piece of the social safety net, Social Security, was better taken out of the government's hands entirely and turned over to the private sector.
More recently, government experts assured the nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a mistaken conclusion with calamitous consequences. Now deficits further sow doubts about Washington.
The result has been an erosion over time in confidence in government's competence. One of the best barometers of that shifting attitude is found in polling done by the Gallup organization, which for four decades has been testing Americans' trust in government. When Gallup asked in 1972 how much Americans trusted the federal government to handle domestic problems, 70% said they had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust. By last year, that had fallen to 51%—almost even with the 48% who said "not very much" trust, or "none at all."
Here's an even starker reading: In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last fall, Americans were asked how much of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing; 65% said "only some of the time," and a stunning 11% said "never."
Can confidence in government be turned around? Perhaps; it seemed to rise briefly in those feel-good moments after President Obama's 2008 election victory.
That's why the Obama administration's ability to competently put health legislation into practice, assuming it becomes law, is so crucial.
On that front Democrats can console themselves with some other history: Medicare itself was viewed as a nearly impossible undertaking, but was implemented smoothly, as was a Medicare prescription-drug benefit signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Maybe, advocates might argue, that shows the government can get some things right after all.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
Health Care Cost and Coverage Reform
Some time ago, I asked in this blog whether you feel responsible in any way for your fellow Americans. Some have said no, some maybe and depends and others Yes.
Well, it seems the Yeses have the day. No matter what your persuasion, I ask that you think whether civil rights legislation was(is) the right thing for America? Is(was) Medicare the right thing? Any of you citizens on Medicare willing to give it up because government runs it? And are you willing to pay your own freight?
Either the Congressional Budget Office is a shill for the administration or they are accurate in their financial analysis. I urge you not to read the hate mongers left or right: rather read the CBO report. Below is Krugman, tomorrow the Wall Street Journal's piece will get space. You all know where I stand on most issues: The good of everyone equally comes first with me even at my own expense. I don't ask you to think or feel that; just to know it.
Fear Strikes Out
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.
But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)
And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.
Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.
Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.
It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.
And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”
Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?
And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.
This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Well, it seems the Yeses have the day. No matter what your persuasion, I ask that you think whether civil rights legislation was(is) the right thing for America? Is(was) Medicare the right thing? Any of you citizens on Medicare willing to give it up because government runs it? And are you willing to pay your own freight?
Either the Congressional Budget Office is a shill for the administration or they are accurate in their financial analysis. I urge you not to read the hate mongers left or right: rather read the CBO report. Below is Krugman, tomorrow the Wall Street Journal's piece will get space. You all know where I stand on most issues: The good of everyone equally comes first with me even at my own expense. I don't ask you to think or feel that; just to know it.
Fear Strikes Out
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.
But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)
And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.
Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.
Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.
It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.
And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”
Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?
And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.
This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Purpose & Correction
Forget the Opinion Poll!
One of my readers wrote to me recently to say that the blog was getting like every other opinion piece. Too political, too involved in the details of our world with out adding new information. The reader also pointed out that not enough of me appears in the blog . She says it this way:
"I am not a fan of opinion blogs...I am a HUGE fan of information blogs..of blogs that tell me something I don't know or add information about something I do. I feel like the day of the opinion "position" blog has come and gone. After a while I just get bored with them...and since I am not a joiner I would never share my opinion about how the government is doing with strangers on the web. I share it with my congressmen, senators and even the president whenever I feel like it (you never know and it makes you feel great)..
I feel like when you began you were going to deliver a good news blog...I don't know why I thought that...something you said or my personal perception of you???? Most people are struggling with themselves now...you have a gift of making people feel better and giving them strength and perspective when they need it...I would love a blog that gave me a dose of "ted" every week like I used to get in person...positive points...ways to look a situations with fresh eyes when your old eyes are very tired. Now there's a blog that everyone would want to read.
Every goof can talk politics very few of you can make people's lives better with their words".
Another reader sent along the following perspective:
A READING FROM JEAN VANIER
Happiness is accepting and choosing life, not just submitting grudgingly to it. It comes when we choose to be who we are, to be ourselves, at this present moment of our lives; we choose life as it is, with all its joys, pains, conflicts. Happiness is living and seeking the truth, together with others in community, and assuming responsibility for our lives and the lives of others. It is accepting the fact that we are not infinite, but can enter into a personal relationship with the Infinite, discovering the universal truth and justice that transcends all cultures: each person is unique and sacred.
...
We have chosen to be who we are, with all that is beautiful and broken in us. We do not slip away from life and live in a world of illusions, dreams, or nightmares. We become present to reality and to life so that we are free to live according to our personal conscience, our sacred sanctuary, where love resides within us and we see others as they are in the depth of their being.
We are not letting the light of life within us be crushed, and we are not crushing it in others. On the contrary, all we want is for the light of others to shine.
---from Finding Peace
I totally agree with the readers, forgot my purpose, and will take us in a better direction.
One of my readers wrote to me recently to say that the blog was getting like every other opinion piece. Too political, too involved in the details of our world with out adding new information. The reader also pointed out that not enough of me appears in the blog . She says it this way:
"I am not a fan of opinion blogs...I am a HUGE fan of information blogs..of blogs that tell me something I don't know or add information about something I do. I feel like the day of the opinion "position" blog has come and gone. After a while I just get bored with them...and since I am not a joiner I would never share my opinion about how the government is doing with strangers on the web. I share it with my congressmen, senators and even the president whenever I feel like it (you never know and it makes you feel great)..
I feel like when you began you were going to deliver a good news blog...I don't know why I thought that...something you said or my personal perception of you???? Most people are struggling with themselves now...you have a gift of making people feel better and giving them strength and perspective when they need it...I would love a blog that gave me a dose of "ted" every week like I used to get in person...positive points...ways to look a situations with fresh eyes when your old eyes are very tired. Now there's a blog that everyone would want to read.
Every goof can talk politics very few of you can make people's lives better with their words".
Another reader sent along the following perspective:
A READING FROM JEAN VANIER
Happiness is accepting and choosing life, not just submitting grudgingly to it. It comes when we choose to be who we are, to be ourselves, at this present moment of our lives; we choose life as it is, with all its joys, pains, conflicts. Happiness is living and seeking the truth, together with others in community, and assuming responsibility for our lives and the lives of others. It is accepting the fact that we are not infinite, but can enter into a personal relationship with the Infinite, discovering the universal truth and justice that transcends all cultures: each person is unique and sacred.
...
We have chosen to be who we are, with all that is beautiful and broken in us. We do not slip away from life and live in a world of illusions, dreams, or nightmares. We become present to reality and to life so that we are free to live according to our personal conscience, our sacred sanctuary, where love resides within us and we see others as they are in the depth of their being.
We are not letting the light of life within us be crushed, and we are not crushing it in others. On the contrary, all we want is for the light of others to shine.
---from Finding Peace
I totally agree with the readers, forgot my purpose, and will take us in a better direction.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
What are We to Think and Do ?
The issues on the Nation's agenda have enormous impact on our Nation, our families and the generations who come after us:
1)Create jobs
2)Contain Health Care Cost
3)Restrain the Greed of Wall Street and the Banks
4)Tort reform as part of containing health care costs
5)Israel/Palestine Issue
6)Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
7)Iran Threat
8)The Global Economy
9)China and its fiscal policy
10)The Spread of Radical Islam
I don't think I have missed any of the important issues; but if I have feel free to add them.
Let's go 100,000 feet above the planet. Let's forget our prejudices, or allegiances to parties and causes. Let's also forget whether we think we know what the issues really are and what real solutions are about.
I would ask that you take a moment and simply rate our government on how you think they are doing on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being excellent.
It does not matter for this exercise whether you are Republican, Democratic, Independent, Tea Party or totally unaffiliated or prejudiced towards any one.
I am asking whether you think that EVERY ONE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENT PROCESS, RIGHT, LEFT, MIDDLE, UP AND DOWN WILL TAKE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OVER TIME?
Sometimes we only get an up or down. So comment by clicking on "Comment, do so anonymously" and rate each item 1 thru 10.
I will publish the responses anonymously. There are nearly 80 people who follow the blog.
1)Create jobs
2)Contain Health Care Cost
3)Restrain the Greed of Wall Street and the Banks
4)Tort reform as part of containing health care costs
5)Israel/Palestine Issue
6)Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
7)Iran Threat
8)The Global Economy
9)China and its fiscal policy
10)The Spread of Radical Islam
I don't think I have missed any of the important issues; but if I have feel free to add them.
Let's go 100,000 feet above the planet. Let's forget our prejudices, or allegiances to parties and causes. Let's also forget whether we think we know what the issues really are and what real solutions are about.
I would ask that you take a moment and simply rate our government on how you think they are doing on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being excellent.
It does not matter for this exercise whether you are Republican, Democratic, Independent, Tea Party or totally unaffiliated or prejudiced towards any one.
I am asking whether you think that EVERY ONE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENT PROCESS, RIGHT, LEFT, MIDDLE, UP AND DOWN WILL TAKE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OVER TIME?
Sometimes we only get an up or down. So comment by clicking on "Comment, do so anonymously" and rate each item 1 thru 10.
I will publish the responses anonymously. There are nearly 80 people who follow the blog.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
David Harris, Again
You know him from The Huffington Post. Why is it people such as Stiglitz, Harris, David Brooks and Bruce Bower get it and those we elect to run our affairs world-wide do not? Like to hear from you.
America Over a Barrel
David Harris
March 1, 2010
There are some things I just don't get.
One of them is America's chronic inability to address our energy dependence on countries hostile to our core values.
Though grave damage is being done to our national security and economy, as a nation, we just can't summon the will to solve a problem which does have a solution.
Thirty-seven years ago, a shot was fired across our bow. OPEC, the oil cartel, decided to mix politics and economics by declaring a boycott of the U.S.
Then came the quadrupling of oil prices, sending our economy into a tailspin.
Our political leaders all promised dramatic action to wean us from our addiction. Initially, some progress was made in raising fuel economy standards and improving overall energy efficiency. But, in the end, their promises fell short.
The price of oil stabilized as output kept pace with demand, and we were quickly lulled right back into collective national complacency. We felt that it was no one's business to tell us what to drive, how to drive, or what to do in our oil-heated homes. This was America, after all, not some nanny state.
So when President Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat in the White House one winter, donned a sweater, and asked us to do the same, we scoffed at our leader. Didn't he know that, as Americans, we were entitled to be the world's biggest energy consumers? How dare he ask us to sacrifice?
Then Congress made matters worse. Even as fuel economy standards were being raised for cars, Capitol Hill exempted light trucks and vans from the rules. Lo and behold, as Americans bought more and more of these gas-guzzlers -- eventually more than half of all vehicles sold in any given year -- our oil needs only grew.
In more recent years, we again became aware of the danger of our oil dependence. The 9/11 attacks were a sobering reminder. We learned that Saudi Arabia, with the world's largest oil reserves, was spending tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue to support the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam around the world. Mosques and madrassas were purveying a message of intolerance and conflict, even as Saudi Arabia was taking out slick ads in the American media promoting our two countries' "shared values."
We watched as Venezuela, the fifth largest exporter of oil to the U.S. and owner of CITGO, used its petrodollars to undermine American interests in Latin America and to forge ties with Iran.
And more broadly, we witnessed energy security issues penetrate just about every nook and cranny in international relations.
America tried to bring the horrors of Darfur to an end, but China's interest in Sudan's oil made it difficult to get concerted international action -- and China isn't alone.
We've tried to forge consensus against Iran's nuclear program, but China's interest in Iran's oil complicates that, too -- and, again, China isn't alone.
Meanwhile, European countries, most of which are heavily dependent on imported oil, are forced to tiptoe politically around the likes of Libya, a nation with the eighth largest proven reserves in the world.
And do we Americans need reminders about the costly consequences for our own foreign policy of our reliance on Middle Eastern oil?
What can be done about this?
For starters:
First, focus on the prize -- a world where the value of oil has dropped dramatically. Imagine what that could mean for the distribution of global power.
And think about the impact on our economy if we could keep hundreds of billions of dollars per year right here rather than sending them overseas to Venezuela to buy weapons from Moscow or to Saudi Arabia to fund madrassas in Pakistan.
Second, it's time we demand -- yes, demand -- concerted action by all our elected officials. Words won't suffice. We've had too many of them. Excuses for inaction won't wash. The very future of our nation is at stake, and it's high time to put this issue at the top of our agenda and keep it there.
Third, let's drop the partisanship. This is about America, not about political parties. Both parties should have an identical interest in moving the country toward real energy security. However naive it may sound, what a sight it would be to see Democrats and Republicans standing shoulder-to-shoulder and pledging united action to deal with our energy dependence head-on until we reach the goal.
Fourth, think bold. Brazil did in the 1970s. It was even more dependent than we on imported oil. No longer. The country today is energy independent, through a combination of national planning, technological innovation, and exploration. And now China is on the way. Beijing has already announced that it seeks to be the global leader in post-oil technologies. Are we going to be content one day to replace our dependence on Middle Eastern oil with dependence on Chinese alternative energy technologies?
Fifth, look in the mirror. How many of us have been part of the problem -- by our buying and driving patterns, by our lifestyles, by a sense of entitlement, and by a belief that some are exempted from the rules that should govern others? With modest changes in our own behavior, we can have a dramatic impact.
And sixth, look to Europe. Not a single one of the most fuel-efficient cars in the U.S. would make the comparable list in Europe, where the base line for the top ten models is 64 miles per gallon. Are Europeans any less interested in safety, emissions controls, or comfort than we are?
Europe has also gone much further than the U.S. in developing public transportation. So, too, has Japan. Now China is leaping ahead. This is especially striking in the realm of high-speed trains. We waited decades for the Acela, but compared to what's available elsewhere, including the Maglev in Shanghai and the TGV in France, forgive me, it's practically ancient.
This is true in metropolitan areas as well. Outside a handful of American cities, public transportation options are few and far between, compelling residents to rely on private vehicles for everything from work to shopping. And even in New York, with its extensive network, a project like the Second Avenue Subway has been in the works, according to author Robert Caro, since "shortly after World War I," yet we're still not there.
Saddest of all is the knowledge that it's well within our grasp to break the stranglehold. We can dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil from hostile countries, while boosting our national security and enhancing our domestic economy -- not to mention the benefits that measures reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will provide in terms of climate change and the environment. We have the scientific and entrepreneurial know-how to develop new technologies, and, save oil, abundant natural resources. There's no one silver bullet for our problem, but there are several promising possibilities. All should be pursued, consistent, of course, with strict environmental safeguards.
President Obama, speaking last year of "our journey toward energy independence," said that "America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation faces. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism."
By contrast, the former director of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, replied that "Like it or not, the fates of the United States and Saudi Arabia are connected and will remain so for decades to come" because of the oil link.
Which will it be? President Obama's vision or Prince Turki al-Faisal's?
The answer should be obvious. The ways to reach it are clear. The bottom-line question is whether there's the national will.
America Over a Barrel
David Harris
March 1, 2010
There are some things I just don't get.
One of them is America's chronic inability to address our energy dependence on countries hostile to our core values.
Though grave damage is being done to our national security and economy, as a nation, we just can't summon the will to solve a problem which does have a solution.
Thirty-seven years ago, a shot was fired across our bow. OPEC, the oil cartel, decided to mix politics and economics by declaring a boycott of the U.S.
Then came the quadrupling of oil prices, sending our economy into a tailspin.
Our political leaders all promised dramatic action to wean us from our addiction. Initially, some progress was made in raising fuel economy standards and improving overall energy efficiency. But, in the end, their promises fell short.
The price of oil stabilized as output kept pace with demand, and we were quickly lulled right back into collective national complacency. We felt that it was no one's business to tell us what to drive, how to drive, or what to do in our oil-heated homes. This was America, after all, not some nanny state.
So when President Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat in the White House one winter, donned a sweater, and asked us to do the same, we scoffed at our leader. Didn't he know that, as Americans, we were entitled to be the world's biggest energy consumers? How dare he ask us to sacrifice?
Then Congress made matters worse. Even as fuel economy standards were being raised for cars, Capitol Hill exempted light trucks and vans from the rules. Lo and behold, as Americans bought more and more of these gas-guzzlers -- eventually more than half of all vehicles sold in any given year -- our oil needs only grew.
In more recent years, we again became aware of the danger of our oil dependence. The 9/11 attacks were a sobering reminder. We learned that Saudi Arabia, with the world's largest oil reserves, was spending tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue to support the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam around the world. Mosques and madrassas were purveying a message of intolerance and conflict, even as Saudi Arabia was taking out slick ads in the American media promoting our two countries' "shared values."
We watched as Venezuela, the fifth largest exporter of oil to the U.S. and owner of CITGO, used its petrodollars to undermine American interests in Latin America and to forge ties with Iran.
And more broadly, we witnessed energy security issues penetrate just about every nook and cranny in international relations.
America tried to bring the horrors of Darfur to an end, but China's interest in Sudan's oil made it difficult to get concerted international action -- and China isn't alone.
We've tried to forge consensus against Iran's nuclear program, but China's interest in Iran's oil complicates that, too -- and, again, China isn't alone.
Meanwhile, European countries, most of which are heavily dependent on imported oil, are forced to tiptoe politically around the likes of Libya, a nation with the eighth largest proven reserves in the world.
And do we Americans need reminders about the costly consequences for our own foreign policy of our reliance on Middle Eastern oil?
What can be done about this?
For starters:
First, focus on the prize -- a world where the value of oil has dropped dramatically. Imagine what that could mean for the distribution of global power.
And think about the impact on our economy if we could keep hundreds of billions of dollars per year right here rather than sending them overseas to Venezuela to buy weapons from Moscow or to Saudi Arabia to fund madrassas in Pakistan.
Second, it's time we demand -- yes, demand -- concerted action by all our elected officials. Words won't suffice. We've had too many of them. Excuses for inaction won't wash. The very future of our nation is at stake, and it's high time to put this issue at the top of our agenda and keep it there.
Third, let's drop the partisanship. This is about America, not about political parties. Both parties should have an identical interest in moving the country toward real energy security. However naive it may sound, what a sight it would be to see Democrats and Republicans standing shoulder-to-shoulder and pledging united action to deal with our energy dependence head-on until we reach the goal.
Fourth, think bold. Brazil did in the 1970s. It was even more dependent than we on imported oil. No longer. The country today is energy independent, through a combination of national planning, technological innovation, and exploration. And now China is on the way. Beijing has already announced that it seeks to be the global leader in post-oil technologies. Are we going to be content one day to replace our dependence on Middle Eastern oil with dependence on Chinese alternative energy technologies?
Fifth, look in the mirror. How many of us have been part of the problem -- by our buying and driving patterns, by our lifestyles, by a sense of entitlement, and by a belief that some are exempted from the rules that should govern others? With modest changes in our own behavior, we can have a dramatic impact.
And sixth, look to Europe. Not a single one of the most fuel-efficient cars in the U.S. would make the comparable list in Europe, where the base line for the top ten models is 64 miles per gallon. Are Europeans any less interested in safety, emissions controls, or comfort than we are?
Europe has also gone much further than the U.S. in developing public transportation. So, too, has Japan. Now China is leaping ahead. This is especially striking in the realm of high-speed trains. We waited decades for the Acela, but compared to what's available elsewhere, including the Maglev in Shanghai and the TGV in France, forgive me, it's practically ancient.
This is true in metropolitan areas as well. Outside a handful of American cities, public transportation options are few and far between, compelling residents to rely on private vehicles for everything from work to shopping. And even in New York, with its extensive network, a project like the Second Avenue Subway has been in the works, according to author Robert Caro, since "shortly after World War I," yet we're still not there.
Saddest of all is the knowledge that it's well within our grasp to break the stranglehold. We can dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil from hostile countries, while boosting our national security and enhancing our domestic economy -- not to mention the benefits that measures reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will provide in terms of climate change and the environment. We have the scientific and entrepreneurial know-how to develop new technologies, and, save oil, abundant natural resources. There's no one silver bullet for our problem, but there are several promising possibilities. All should be pursued, consistent, of course, with strict environmental safeguards.
President Obama, speaking last year of "our journey toward energy independence," said that "America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation faces. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism."
By contrast, the former director of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, replied that "Like it or not, the fates of the United States and Saudi Arabia are connected and will remain so for decades to come" because of the oil link.
Which will it be? President Obama's vision or Prince Turki al-Faisal's?
The answer should be obvious. The ways to reach it are clear. The bottom-line question is whether there's the national will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
