Catholic Social Teaching
Left, Sex, and Religion
11/06/11 11:26
Frank Schaeffer wrote a very interesting piece for the Huffington Post about how 60's radicals failed. They failed, he argues, because they fought the cultural wars at the cost of paying no attention to other liberal/left values like pro-unionism, regulation of the market, and worker safety. Instead, he writes passionately that
Chris Hedges is correct: the "liberals" and the American Left have been betrayed by people more interested in selling out to corporate America (who have been busy selling sex to us, and sexualized all selling) than in workers rights or the economy.
I think there's a lot to say for this position, but it misses something as well. That something it misses is the dominance of corporate capitalism and the consumer society. We do not just sell sex in this society; we also and more so sell violence. American views about sex and violence are the exact reverse of those of Europe. Sex is not considered too taboo in Europe, but violence is. And Europe has a much stronger position on unions, food safety, worker safety, etc. than does the United States. It's hard, then, to blame the left's embrace of the culture wars for the decline of other left agendas in the United States.
What could be the cause of these declines? In part, it is a separation of the culture wars from those other issues. And this separation results from the dominance of religion in American politics, a puritan religion which is more willing to embrace violence in the name of nationalism, a corporate laissez-faire capitalism at the expense of Gospel values, and a worship of money over a love of neighbor.
If we want to understand these issues that Schaeffer brings up, we have to look at the whole social consciousness of America.
Chris Hedges is correct: the "liberals" and the American Left have been betrayed by people more interested in selling out to corporate America (who have been busy selling sex to us, and sexualized all selling) than in workers rights or the economy.
I think there's a lot to say for this position, but it misses something as well. That something it misses is the dominance of corporate capitalism and the consumer society. We do not just sell sex in this society; we also and more so sell violence. American views about sex and violence are the exact reverse of those of Europe. Sex is not considered too taboo in Europe, but violence is. And Europe has a much stronger position on unions, food safety, worker safety, etc. than does the United States. It's hard, then, to blame the left's embrace of the culture wars for the decline of other left agendas in the United States.
What could be the cause of these declines? In part, it is a separation of the culture wars from those other issues. And this separation results from the dominance of religion in American politics, a puritan religion which is more willing to embrace violence in the name of nationalism, a corporate laissez-faire capitalism at the expense of Gospel values, and a worship of money over a love of neighbor.
If we want to understand these issues that Schaeffer brings up, we have to look at the whole social consciousness of America.
Comments
Food Prices Rise
31/05/11 10:57
The BBC reports that food prices will rise 180% over the next 20 years. They've already risen 20% over the last 10 years. Much of the rise in food prices will result from global warming: less farm land, more frequent storms that destroy farmland, greater heat, etc. Of course, the people most affected by this will be the poor who already suffer greatly.
While I often promoted local communities and small farms on this blog as a means to greater freedom and agency, the response to global warming must extend out beyond the local communities: the global community must come together to frame policy that can mitigate the effects of global warming and especially limit the cost to the poor. On this point, I would side with Benedict XVI's call in Caritas in Veritate over Alasdair MacIntyre's trumpeting of the local community.
However, whatever set of policies the global community decides upon, those policies must be ones that support strong local communities, local markets, and local jobs. This is not an either or situation. We must have strong planning at the global stage that supports local communities.
The world has been talking about global warming for decades now. It is time to do something, and each of us have one primary responsibility: to stop supporting legislators who either do not believe in global warming or who work against legislation to combat global warming.
The clock is ticking!
While I often promoted local communities and small farms on this blog as a means to greater freedom and agency, the response to global warming must extend out beyond the local communities: the global community must come together to frame policy that can mitigate the effects of global warming and especially limit the cost to the poor. On this point, I would side with Benedict XVI's call in Caritas in Veritate over Alasdair MacIntyre's trumpeting of the local community.
However, whatever set of policies the global community decides upon, those policies must be ones that support strong local communities, local markets, and local jobs. This is not an either or situation. We must have strong planning at the global stage that supports local communities.
The world has been talking about global warming for decades now. It is time to do something, and each of us have one primary responsibility: to stop supporting legislators who either do not believe in global warming or who work against legislation to combat global warming.
The clock is ticking!
Obama's Address to Birtish Parliament
25/05/11 11:07
In his speech before the British Parliament, President Obama said that the time for America and Britain to be leaders of the world is now, and that the leadership begins with economic leadership.
"Adam Smith's central insight remains true today: there is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That is what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester."
This remark mirrors the one he made in his state of the nation speech after being trammeled in the mid-term elections by Republicans. It signifies a move to the center, or supposed center.
Yet, as I wrote then, this really misunderstands what is required for prosperity at this point. What is a free enterprise? Is it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what libertarians and so-called republicans want? If so, then free enterprise is not very center. And is it true that free enterprise "unleashes the full potential of individual men and women"? Clearly not, if what we mean is laissez-faire capitalism. Rather, a free market at the local level of community provides the best means for unleashing the full potential of men and women. It also constitutes the best means for building communities which prove necessary for the development of individual men and women.
Notice, that later in the speech, President Obama states
"And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security - health-care if you get sick; unemployment insurance if you lose your job; a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work."
This tradition of providing for the basic needs of a citizen represents a true move toward recognizing the dignity of each and every human individual by providing a network of security for their individual pursuit of the good. What defines someone as center or left is the level and extent of those security measures. What must be of central importance, however, is the good of the individual's flourishing, which can only happen within a supportive community. That fact means, that human flourishing requires local communities centered on participatory democratic discussion of the common good, free markets, strong schools, and interactions between churches, clubs, and local government.
Obama is right to claim that
"the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies - that it's possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and infrastructure."
These goals are worthy goals and ones which require national and international governance and treaties. The local community must be autonomous and free from market coercions that send jobs out of the community, but they must also be held to standards that protect the global environment and maintains infrastructure for trans-communal communication.
Obama is right in many of his ideas, but I caution once more against his too easy embrace of libertarian language and his seemingly lack of distinction between the goals he espouses and the methods to attain them.
"Adam Smith's central insight remains true today: there is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That is what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester."
This remark mirrors the one he made in his state of the nation speech after being trammeled in the mid-term elections by Republicans. It signifies a move to the center, or supposed center.
Yet, as I wrote then, this really misunderstands what is required for prosperity at this point. What is a free enterprise? Is it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what libertarians and so-called republicans want? If so, then free enterprise is not very center. And is it true that free enterprise "unleashes the full potential of individual men and women"? Clearly not, if what we mean is laissez-faire capitalism. Rather, a free market at the local level of community provides the best means for unleashing the full potential of men and women. It also constitutes the best means for building communities which prove necessary for the development of individual men and women.
Notice, that later in the speech, President Obama states
"And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security - health-care if you get sick; unemployment insurance if you lose your job; a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work."
This tradition of providing for the basic needs of a citizen represents a true move toward recognizing the dignity of each and every human individual by providing a network of security for their individual pursuit of the good. What defines someone as center or left is the level and extent of those security measures. What must be of central importance, however, is the good of the individual's flourishing, which can only happen within a supportive community. That fact means, that human flourishing requires local communities centered on participatory democratic discussion of the common good, free markets, strong schools, and interactions between churches, clubs, and local government.
Obama is right to claim that
"the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies - that it's possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and infrastructure."
These goals are worthy goals and ones which require national and international governance and treaties. The local community must be autonomous and free from market coercions that send jobs out of the community, but they must also be held to standards that protect the global environment and maintains infrastructure for trans-communal communication.
Obama is right in many of his ideas, but I caution once more against his too easy embrace of libertarian language and his seemingly lack of distinction between the goals he espouses and the methods to attain them.
Rurum Novarum 120
14/05/11 20:16
On 15 May 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum Novarum, On New Things, or, sometimes translated, On the Condition of Labor. It's the 120th anniversary of that letter. The letter marked the new era of Catholic Social Teaching, and led to such encyclicals as Hope and Joy, On Human Work, and Love in Truth. Rerum Novarum laid out the key themes of Catholic Social Teaching in the contemporary period: a concern for the poor in a world divided between free-market capitalism and state capitalism, a recognition of the right to work, health care, and education, the need for labor unions, and the need to embrace peace with justice.
We should keep these ideas in mind, for the problems of Leo XIII saw have not disappeared. In our current recessionary economy, we see attacks on labor, on unions, on health care, and on the right to work. We see rhetoric that says that those who are unemployed are lazy and need to take responsibility for themselves. And we see continual attacks on social programs that provide not even the bare minimum standard of living.
What Rerum Novarum calls us to remember is that Jesus Christ came to minister to the poor and that we all have a responsibility to care for the least of those among us. This means, first and foremost, recognizing that in the modern world, governments must step in to provide security for the least well off in society. This government must secure the social right to property while maintaining the ability of people to satisfy their needs and live a good life.
Let's take this opportunity to dedicate ourselves to that goal.
We should keep these ideas in mind, for the problems of Leo XIII saw have not disappeared. In our current recessionary economy, we see attacks on labor, on unions, on health care, and on the right to work. We see rhetoric that says that those who are unemployed are lazy and need to take responsibility for themselves. And we see continual attacks on social programs that provide not even the bare minimum standard of living.
What Rerum Novarum calls us to remember is that Jesus Christ came to minister to the poor and that we all have a responsibility to care for the least of those among us. This means, first and foremost, recognizing that in the modern world, governments must step in to provide security for the least well off in society. This government must secure the social right to property while maintaining the ability of people to satisfy their needs and live a good life.
Let's take this opportunity to dedicate ourselves to that goal.
We are Resurrection April 2011
25/04/11 15:04
We are a Resurrection People!
We spent 6 weeks sacrificing, reflecting, and changing our habits.
Now we have 8 weeks to celebrate our Resurrection! Our renewal in new forms of habits, new virtues, new life! What this time means is that we celebrate our change: we continue to practice the new virtues and habits that we developed: whether that be walking or other forms of exercise, abstaining from meat or other forms of diet, complimenting people or other forms of social interaction, praying or other forms of personal relationship with God, our emergence from Lent into the Easter season means that we continue to progress as new people.
Easter represents new life -- life in God reflected in how we live everyday with each other.
The changes we have worked so hard for must pay off in how we live our everyday life. This means thinking about the person who cut us off in traffic and hoping he or she makes her appointment on time and safe. It means talking to each other and trying to understand the other person. Listening!
All of these changes should reflect in our community and political involvement. I do not mean whether we vote democrat or republican, but the way we vote. How do we approach voting? How do we approach issues of social justice? How do we approach constructing the common good?
Christian life is lived everyday in community, the best political life is one lived in community seeking a common good and living virtuously so that all can be Resurrection!
That is our calling!
We spent 6 weeks sacrificing, reflecting, and changing our habits.
Now we have 8 weeks to celebrate our Resurrection! Our renewal in new forms of habits, new virtues, new life! What this time means is that we celebrate our change: we continue to practice the new virtues and habits that we developed: whether that be walking or other forms of exercise, abstaining from meat or other forms of diet, complimenting people or other forms of social interaction, praying or other forms of personal relationship with God, our emergence from Lent into the Easter season means that we continue to progress as new people.
Easter represents new life -- life in God reflected in how we live everyday with each other.
The changes we have worked so hard for must pay off in how we live our everyday life. This means thinking about the person who cut us off in traffic and hoping he or she makes her appointment on time and safe. It means talking to each other and trying to understand the other person. Listening!
All of these changes should reflect in our community and political involvement. I do not mean whether we vote democrat or republican, but the way we vote. How do we approach voting? How do we approach issues of social justice? How do we approach constructing the common good?
Christian life is lived everyday in community, the best political life is one lived in community seeking a common good and living virtuously so that all can be Resurrection!
That is our calling!
10 Ways to Commemorate Good Friday AND Earth Day
22/04/11 12:20
Here are ten ways you can commemorate Good Friday and Earth Day on 22 April 2011.
1. Don’t eat meat: a requirement for Catholics and many other Christians and does a lot to save the environment.
2. Walk or Bike to Good Friday Services
Bonus: Make it a family affair
3. Talk to someone about how abortion, the death penalty, mistreatment of women, and destruction of the environment are all part of the Culture of Death, and we cannot overcome the Culture of Death piecemeal by passing this or that piece of legislation against abortion or environmental degradation.
Bonus: write your legislators to produce the culture of death in all of its forms.
4. Adopt a pet from an animal shelter that kills.
Bonus: make sure it’s neutered
5. Walk the Stations of the Cross in the beautiful sunshine or the beautiful rain.
Many cities have outdoor Stations. Cincinnati, at midnight on Holy Thursday, you can join the hundred of people who climb the stairs from the river to Immaculata Church praying the rosary. In Mount Angel, you can pray the Stations as you walk the hill to the Abbey Church. I’m sure other cities have such beautiful places.
6. Carpool with someone: sorta the way Simon helped Jesus carry the cross.
7. On your lunch break, walk around the city and pick up trash, praying a bead on the rosary for each piece you pick up.
8. Paint a picture or write a poem that combines the themes of crucifixion and Earth Day.
9. Tell your loved ones you want a natural earth-friendly burial and call the funeral home to arrange it.
10. Play Copeland’s Appalachian Spring: the music for “Lord of the Dance” and Spring music.
Bonus #1: Make up your own list, post it below and share it with friends.
Bonus #2: Think of Ten Ways to Celebrate Easter and Earth Day and share it with friends.
Have a Blessed Easter!
1. Don’t eat meat: a requirement for Catholics and many other Christians and does a lot to save the environment.
2. Walk or Bike to Good Friday Services
Bonus: Make it a family affair
3. Talk to someone about how abortion, the death penalty, mistreatment of women, and destruction of the environment are all part of the Culture of Death, and we cannot overcome the Culture of Death piecemeal by passing this or that piece of legislation against abortion or environmental degradation.
Bonus: write your legislators to produce the culture of death in all of its forms.
4. Adopt a pet from an animal shelter that kills.
Bonus: make sure it’s neutered
5. Walk the Stations of the Cross in the beautiful sunshine or the beautiful rain.
Many cities have outdoor Stations. Cincinnati, at midnight on Holy Thursday, you can join the hundred of people who climb the stairs from the river to Immaculata Church praying the rosary. In Mount Angel, you can pray the Stations as you walk the hill to the Abbey Church. I’m sure other cities have such beautiful places.
6. Carpool with someone: sorta the way Simon helped Jesus carry the cross.
7. On your lunch break, walk around the city and pick up trash, praying a bead on the rosary for each piece you pick up.
8. Paint a picture or write a poem that combines the themes of crucifixion and Earth Day.
9. Tell your loved ones you want a natural earth-friendly burial and call the funeral home to arrange it.
10. Play Copeland’s Appalachian Spring: the music for “Lord of the Dance” and Spring music.
Bonus #1: Make up your own list, post it below and share it with friends.
Bonus #2: Think of Ten Ways to Celebrate Easter and Earth Day and share it with friends.
Have a Blessed Easter!
There But for the Grace of God...
18/04/11 11:28
In a recent article, George Lakoff holds that Obama has returned to a moral vision that democrats and progressives should pay attention. Lakoff summarizes that moral vision in the following words:
Democracy is based on empathy, that is, on citizens caring about each other and acting on that care, taking responsibility not just for themselves but for their families, communities and their nation. The role of government is to carry out this principle in two ways: protection and empowerment.
It seems to me, regardless of whether this vision is one Obama shares, that it should be one that you and I and Obama shares. As I’ve argued on this blog before, we are not alligators or vampires -- independent agents able to care solely for ourselves. Rather, we are social beings who require each other -- who require a community shaped by a common good -- to care for each other (when young, when old, when ill, when weak) and to live a good life (as Aristotle asks: who would want to live without friends).
Libertarians, Republicans, and other conservatives often speak about being responsible. Yet, responsibility extends beyond the self. Responsibility entails responsibility for those in my family and in my community and even in the larger world. Democracy can be one of the best ways to secure the community and the individual by both protecting and empowering. Yet, it seems that our discourse today in the public is never so much about empowering as it is about protecting from unknown enemies who might destroy our way of life.
If we empower people -- the people in our families, in our communities, in our world -- we undermine any possibility that others can destroy that way of life.
Which is a key idea to keep in mind as we enter Holy Week and our remembrance of the death of Jesus. Jesus died to empower us -- to lead us in making good decisions about caring for others. He did not die for Himself. It’s this central image -- Jesus care for others -- that must motivate our Catholic identity as those most concerned with issues of social justice. Until we do that, we are not really Christian.
Democracy is based on empathy, that is, on citizens caring about each other and acting on that care, taking responsibility not just for themselves but for their families, communities and their nation. The role of government is to carry out this principle in two ways: protection and empowerment.
It seems to me, regardless of whether this vision is one Obama shares, that it should be one that you and I and Obama shares. As I’ve argued on this blog before, we are not alligators or vampires -- independent agents able to care solely for ourselves. Rather, we are social beings who require each other -- who require a community shaped by a common good -- to care for each other (when young, when old, when ill, when weak) and to live a good life (as Aristotle asks: who would want to live without friends).
Libertarians, Republicans, and other conservatives often speak about being responsible. Yet, responsibility extends beyond the self. Responsibility entails responsibility for those in my family and in my community and even in the larger world. Democracy can be one of the best ways to secure the community and the individual by both protecting and empowering. Yet, it seems that our discourse today in the public is never so much about empowering as it is about protecting from unknown enemies who might destroy our way of life.
If we empower people -- the people in our families, in our communities, in our world -- we undermine any possibility that others can destroy that way of life.
Which is a key idea to keep in mind as we enter Holy Week and our remembrance of the death of Jesus. Jesus died to empower us -- to lead us in making good decisions about caring for others. He did not die for Himself. It’s this central image -- Jesus care for others -- that must motivate our Catholic identity as those most concerned with issues of social justice. Until we do that, we are not really Christian.
Greed and God
06/04/11 09:56
Most psychologically healthy adults recognize in their heart of hearts the moral perversion of the old economy, but may fear to speak up because so many experts—including even some religious leaders—continuously assure us in so many words that greed is good, even that God wants us to be financially rich and financial wealth is a mark of God’s favor.
So writes David Korten in a blog. And he’s right. But we need to look at the broader picture.
According to Max Weber, famed sociologist, an aspect of Christianity preaches that God favors his favorites by making them financially rich and, conversely, that being rich is a sign of God’s favor. Capitalism would not be possible, so Weber argues, without this Christian ethic. The ethic stretches back to the Old Testament too. Recall that Job was rich, and when he lost his wealth, his friends asked him what sin he committed.
We have to contend against this ethic that says God measures us by the amount of wealth we have. That paints a picture of a God of money, not a God of love. Jesus tells us over and over again, that His Father is a Loving Father.
And if we start thinking about Jesus, about God, and about religion in those terms, our picture of wealth and wealth creation must change. This contest -- the contest between the growth of profit and the growth of the human person -- constitutes the greatest challenge of all time and the defining element of our modern Western civilization. We are on the brink of choosing the wrong side as politicians attempt to strip workers of their rights, and as we condemn unions for sending jobs overseas. It is not unions that cause jobs to go over seas. Multinational corporations who define their values solely in light of the profit motive send jobs overseas.
Only by uniting against the wealth mongers and seeing God as love will we be able to overcome this trial and survive into a new, more wholesome age.
So writes David Korten in a blog. And he’s right. But we need to look at the broader picture.
According to Max Weber, famed sociologist, an aspect of Christianity preaches that God favors his favorites by making them financially rich and, conversely, that being rich is a sign of God’s favor. Capitalism would not be possible, so Weber argues, without this Christian ethic. The ethic stretches back to the Old Testament too. Recall that Job was rich, and when he lost his wealth, his friends asked him what sin he committed.
We have to contend against this ethic that says God measures us by the amount of wealth we have. That paints a picture of a God of money, not a God of love. Jesus tells us over and over again, that His Father is a Loving Father.
And if we start thinking about Jesus, about God, and about religion in those terms, our picture of wealth and wealth creation must change. This contest -- the contest between the growth of profit and the growth of the human person -- constitutes the greatest challenge of all time and the defining element of our modern Western civilization. We are on the brink of choosing the wrong side as politicians attempt to strip workers of their rights, and as we condemn unions for sending jobs overseas. It is not unions that cause jobs to go over seas. Multinational corporations who define their values solely in light of the profit motive send jobs overseas.
Only by uniting against the wealth mongers and seeing God as love will we be able to overcome this trial and survive into a new, more wholesome age.
MLK jr, Worker's Rights, April 4th
04/04/11 12:40
As Think Progress notes, Dr. King died 43 years ago today, marching and speaking about collective bargaining rights for trash collectors in Memphis, TN.
I’ve visited the spot where he was shot on that clear morning so long ago. It was a very spiritually moving moment standing outside the Civil Rights Museum looking into the hotel room he spent his last night.
Yet, 43 years later, we see one of the strongest attacks on collective bargaining rights in the history of the world.
Why?
We’re told we need to end collective bargaining of public employees in order to close the budget gaps at many state levels. We all know that is bull!
Republican governors across the US think they can end collective bargaining rights thus serving their rich contributors and making it less likely for people to vote in the future for their democratic rivals. But democrats are doing very little to help protect the worker when the worker is in power.
Here’s the truth: we have a moral choice to make between protecting the subject -- the worker -- or protecting the object -- the bottom line.
MLK jr got shot because he told us what God wanted.
I’ve visited the spot where he was shot on that clear morning so long ago. It was a very spiritually moving moment standing outside the Civil Rights Museum looking into the hotel room he spent his last night.
Yet, 43 years later, we see one of the strongest attacks on collective bargaining rights in the history of the world.
Why?
We’re told we need to end collective bargaining of public employees in order to close the budget gaps at many state levels. We all know that is bull!
Republican governors across the US think they can end collective bargaining rights thus serving their rich contributors and making it less likely for people to vote in the future for their democratic rivals. But democrats are doing very little to help protect the worker when the worker is in power.
Here’s the truth: we have a moral choice to make between protecting the subject -- the worker -- or protecting the object -- the bottom line.
MLK jr got shot because he told us what God wanted.
Obama's Speech on Libya
28/03/11 17:38
President Obama in a televised speech defended the military actions in Libya. You will be able to hear any number of pundits on the radio and television dissecting his speech. Yet, I think a few things need to be emphasized that others will miss.
First and foremost: Obama says “The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.” I find this reasoning interesting and promising. Where George W. Bush made unilateral action the motif of his presidency, Obama insists, rightly I think, that the United Nations is important for military action. But, more importantly, he holds that the UN Security Council would be seen as crippled if a strong military did not carry out it’s will. How many times has the United States, however, prevented the UN from carrying out its mandate of maintaining peace among nations and preventing injustice?
I would also note that Obama’s position on the UN mirrors that of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Benedict XVI called for a UN with teeth. Such a United Nations would be able to enforce human rights across the globe.
This belief in a UN with teeth, however, requires something that Obama did not address: a conception of a common good. That is, in order to have a truly global governing body, we must first establish a common good that such a governing body would protect. If you watch Star Trek, Star Fleet serves as the teeth of the Federation. Presumably the Federation has some common good it pursues -- living out the dream of Gene Roddenbery. But, until the world can agree on any such common good, the UN will either lack the necessary teeth to carry out its vision or, worse, it will be susceptible to corruption from those who do.
First and foremost: Obama says “The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.” I find this reasoning interesting and promising. Where George W. Bush made unilateral action the motif of his presidency, Obama insists, rightly I think, that the United Nations is important for military action. But, more importantly, he holds that the UN Security Council would be seen as crippled if a strong military did not carry out it’s will. How many times has the United States, however, prevented the UN from carrying out its mandate of maintaining peace among nations and preventing injustice?
I would also note that Obama’s position on the UN mirrors that of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Benedict XVI called for a UN with teeth. Such a United Nations would be able to enforce human rights across the globe.
This belief in a UN with teeth, however, requires something that Obama did not address: a conception of a common good. That is, in order to have a truly global governing body, we must first establish a common good that such a governing body would protect. If you watch Star Trek, Star Fleet serves as the teeth of the Federation. Presumably the Federation has some common good it pursues -- living out the dream of Gene Roddenbery. But, until the world can agree on any such common good, the UN will either lack the necessary teeth to carry out its vision or, worse, it will be susceptible to corruption from those who do.
Food Production and 9 Billion People
24/03/11 09:38
As reported on Arstechnica, we are facing a food production crisis. Currently 7 billion people live on the planet. By 2050, scientists expect 9 billion people. Of the 7 billion people currently living, over 1 billion are starving.
So think about that: 1 out of every 7 people in the world could die from starvation!
And it can only get worse. We’ve maxed out what the world can produce. Environmental changes caused by global warming will make the world hotter, which means we have to change what crops we grow. Plus, we are short on clean water, which is necessary for farming. As the world warms and glaciers melt, sea levels will rise, put all of these people on less and less land -- which will make farm land even more costly.
On top of that, we’ve turned to bio-fuels to stop our dependency on oil. This move is one of the worst we could make. We’ve drive up the price of corn, we grow more corn -- which is costly to land -- and we’ve stopped people from growing other more healthy corn. Corn is costly to land because it takes such a large space to grow -- four feet between each plant -- and because it depletes the soil of nutrients.
We need to start thinking more clearly and more carefully about how we will feed people. This means rethinking the following:
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on these issues?
So think about that: 1 out of every 7 people in the world could die from starvation!
And it can only get worse. We’ve maxed out what the world can produce. Environmental changes caused by global warming will make the world hotter, which means we have to change what crops we grow. Plus, we are short on clean water, which is necessary for farming. As the world warms and glaciers melt, sea levels will rise, put all of these people on less and less land -- which will make farm land even more costly.
On top of that, we’ve turned to bio-fuels to stop our dependency on oil. This move is one of the worst we could make. We’ve drive up the price of corn, we grow more corn -- which is costly to land -- and we’ve stopped people from growing other more healthy corn. Corn is costly to land because it takes such a large space to grow -- four feet between each plant -- and because it depletes the soil of nutrients.
We need to start thinking more clearly and more carefully about how we will feed people. This means rethinking the following:
- small farms versus corporate farms
- meat
- water use
- water reclamation and clean water technology
- genetically engineered crops
- politics of food distribution
- eating seasonally/ habits of eating
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on these issues?
UN, Just War, and Libya
18/03/11 12:33
As the Christian Science Monitor reports, The Un has passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone and the use of force against Col. Muammar Quaddafi if he does not cease violence against protestors and restore power and water to rebel held locations. In a speech on Friday afternoon, President Obama laid out the clear reasons for voting for the resolution and participating in any military action against Quaddafi. Obama declared that the reasons for the sanctions and military action against Quaddafi included the protection of innocent life and the affirmation of universal rights, that the goal of such sanctions and action included the restoration of power and water and the cessation of attacks on innocents, and that the United States role would be limited, but that clearly no foreign military should participate in attacks against the citizens of Libya.
Given my discussion of Just War and the Middle East the other day, I think addressing the UN resolution from just war principles seems appropriate. I think that, given what we know, the UN resolution adheres to just war principles and that Obama’s stated opinion favoring the resolution adhere to just war principles.
The first principle of just war declares that war must be waged for legitimate goals with the aim of establishing peace. These goals include ending oppression and protecting the innocent from violence. Quaddafi is clearly attacking innocents and oppressing people. Second, just war must have a clear goal: the UN resolution and President Obama have established clear goals which are objective and measurable: the end to violence against innocents and the restoration of basic human services. War must be declared by a legitimate authority. Quaddafi has claimed that the UN has no right to interfere with his sovereignty. Yet, given that the resolution passed with wide support (even though Russia and China abstained from voting for the resolution), the question becomes one of the legitimacy of the United Nations. While I have no room to argue this here, I hold firmly to belief in the legitimacy of the United Nations and support, in fact, a stronger UN, one not hampered by the veto power of particular dominant nations. Finally, war must be the last resort. Here, Obama laid out the stages which have led up to the UN resolution. I think they’ve made a legitimate case for voting for the resolution. The question will become, To what extent will they or can they wait for Quaddafi to cease hostilities and restore basic services? This point will be something we will have to judge as we move forward
Given these points, a few others must be kept in mind about just war: primarily, the issue of proportionality and, second, the prohibition against attacking non-combatants.
I suggested in my post the other day, that a problem for modern warfare is the inability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Even our most sophisticated weaponry ends up killing a significant number of innocents -- a number we gloss over with the term “collateral damage.” But for justice and for the innocent, collateral damage is anything but collateral -- it is testament to the wrongness of war and killing. Can we take military action against Quaddafi without injuring innocents? A no-fly zone seems possible, but what else?
Secondly, we must remember that violence in the war must be proportional to the violence imposed by the offending party. This level is hard to gauge. Clear violations present themselves in the form of nuclear attacks, which can never be legitimized. But to what extent can the Arab league, NATO, and the United States cause violence against Quaddafi and pro-Quaddafi forces?
The only to answer this question is the following: only that violence which is necessary to achieve the legitimate and clear goals of any violent action engaged in: the protection of human life and the restoration of necessary services for a good human life.
Let’s pray that little violence will be necessary to achieve these goals.
Given my discussion of Just War and the Middle East the other day, I think addressing the UN resolution from just war principles seems appropriate. I think that, given what we know, the UN resolution adheres to just war principles and that Obama’s stated opinion favoring the resolution adhere to just war principles.
The first principle of just war declares that war must be waged for legitimate goals with the aim of establishing peace. These goals include ending oppression and protecting the innocent from violence. Quaddafi is clearly attacking innocents and oppressing people. Second, just war must have a clear goal: the UN resolution and President Obama have established clear goals which are objective and measurable: the end to violence against innocents and the restoration of basic human services. War must be declared by a legitimate authority. Quaddafi has claimed that the UN has no right to interfere with his sovereignty. Yet, given that the resolution passed with wide support (even though Russia and China abstained from voting for the resolution), the question becomes one of the legitimacy of the United Nations. While I have no room to argue this here, I hold firmly to belief in the legitimacy of the United Nations and support, in fact, a stronger UN, one not hampered by the veto power of particular dominant nations. Finally, war must be the last resort. Here, Obama laid out the stages which have led up to the UN resolution. I think they’ve made a legitimate case for voting for the resolution. The question will become, To what extent will they or can they wait for Quaddafi to cease hostilities and restore basic services? This point will be something we will have to judge as we move forward
Given these points, a few others must be kept in mind about just war: primarily, the issue of proportionality and, second, the prohibition against attacking non-combatants.
I suggested in my post the other day, that a problem for modern warfare is the inability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Even our most sophisticated weaponry ends up killing a significant number of innocents -- a number we gloss over with the term “collateral damage.” But for justice and for the innocent, collateral damage is anything but collateral -- it is testament to the wrongness of war and killing. Can we take military action against Quaddafi without injuring innocents? A no-fly zone seems possible, but what else?
Secondly, we must remember that violence in the war must be proportional to the violence imposed by the offending party. This level is hard to gauge. Clear violations present themselves in the form of nuclear attacks, which can never be legitimized. But to what extent can the Arab league, NATO, and the United States cause violence against Quaddafi and pro-Quaddafi forces?
The only to answer this question is the following: only that violence which is necessary to achieve the legitimate and clear goals of any violent action engaged in: the protection of human life and the restoration of necessary services for a good human life.
Let’s pray that little violence will be necessary to achieve these goals.
Just War, Bahrain, and Libya
16/03/11 14:16
Much is happening in the world right now, so much it’s hard to keep track. Since the 9.0 earthquake in Japan, the subsequent tsunami, and the troubles with the nuclear reactor, the news coming out of the Middle East has been downplayed or ignored. Yet, troubles are a-brewing in the Middle East, especially in Bahrain and in Libya.
Both places have witnessed protests against the reigning monarchs. Muammar Quadafi has ruled Libya for over forty years, oppressing people. In Bahrain, the ruling Suuni oppress the majority Shi’ites. The United States, which has a large naval base in Bahrain, has remained out of the conflict, while condemning the actions of Bahrain’s rulers and the Saudi Arabian use of force against the Shi’ites. Of course,this is easy for the United States: they are not the ones suffering or the ones who have no voice. They’re the ones with televisions, iPads, and iPods.
As I write that, however, I have to come face to face with the tradition of just war theory, a theory first proposed by St. Augustine in the face of invasions in the late Roman Empire and expounded upon by St. Thomas during the middle ages, as the fledgling kingdoms of Europe began to assert their authority and their military might. I have to meet this face to face because I condemned both Iraqi wars and even the war in Afghanistan. The two iraqi wars were waged, not over justice or the rights of the people, but over oil. And, as Pope John Paul II clearly enunciated, modern warfare can hardly ever be legitimated by the principles of just war. Why?
One principle of just war requires that civilians not be harmed. Yet, even with “smart” bombs and modern guidance techniques, we see thousands upon thousands of civilians murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan by the United States military.
So why should the United States interfere once more, this time in Bahrain or in Libya?
I’m not sure except this: I see people fighting for their freedom, for their rights, in the streets of Bahrain and in Libya. I wish they had not resorted to the violent protests and had remained non-violent like the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Yet, what I’m witnessing is an offense against my moral sentiments: here are people trying to claim a better life for themselves by claiming rights that every person should enjoy. Yet, they are being beat by military forces that have oppressed them for decades.
What can I say to these people: protest but not violently, and then watch as their neighbors and themselves are mowed over by a military machine?
Sometimes being a moral philosopher isn’t easy. This time proves to be tough as nails.
Both places have witnessed protests against the reigning monarchs. Muammar Quadafi has ruled Libya for over forty years, oppressing people. In Bahrain, the ruling Suuni oppress the majority Shi’ites. The United States, which has a large naval base in Bahrain, has remained out of the conflict, while condemning the actions of Bahrain’s rulers and the Saudi Arabian use of force against the Shi’ites. Of course,this is easy for the United States: they are not the ones suffering or the ones who have no voice. They’re the ones with televisions, iPads, and iPods.
As I write that, however, I have to come face to face with the tradition of just war theory, a theory first proposed by St. Augustine in the face of invasions in the late Roman Empire and expounded upon by St. Thomas during the middle ages, as the fledgling kingdoms of Europe began to assert their authority and their military might. I have to meet this face to face because I condemned both Iraqi wars and even the war in Afghanistan. The two iraqi wars were waged, not over justice or the rights of the people, but over oil. And, as Pope John Paul II clearly enunciated, modern warfare can hardly ever be legitimated by the principles of just war. Why?
One principle of just war requires that civilians not be harmed. Yet, even with “smart” bombs and modern guidance techniques, we see thousands upon thousands of civilians murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan by the United States military.
So why should the United States interfere once more, this time in Bahrain or in Libya?
I’m not sure except this: I see people fighting for their freedom, for their rights, in the streets of Bahrain and in Libya. I wish they had not resorted to the violent protests and had remained non-violent like the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Yet, what I’m witnessing is an offense against my moral sentiments: here are people trying to claim a better life for themselves by claiming rights that every person should enjoy. Yet, they are being beat by military forces that have oppressed them for decades.
What can I say to these people: protest but not violently, and then watch as their neighbors and themselves are mowed over by a military machine?
Sometimes being a moral philosopher isn’t easy. This time proves to be tough as nails.
Us and Them: On Public Employees
08/03/11 10:03
Articles like this one on Yahoo irk me. This particular article discusses the frustration and resentment that private employees feel toward public employees for having seemingly better pensions and better pay while on the job.
As I’ve tried to state over and over, it’s exactly this attitude that the media, the government, and business want to encourage among everyone. It’s divisive at heart, and what better serves those in power than to keep us who are not in power divided among ourselves? What better way to maintain the system as is than to keep those of us who have an interest in changing the system divided among ourselves?
Yes, we should sympathize with Erin McFarlane who has been laid off and is now working part time jobs. We should sympathize with everyone who cannot retire and live comfortable at 65 for a good 30 or 40 years (and maybe longer). What we should not do -- what we should never do -- is see this as something others have and we don’t. Rather, we should investigate whose interests this really serves.
Otherwise, we are left with the conclusion that my colleague Bob posted: “I'm so horribly mad at families earning $75,000 per year including benefits. They are milking the system to death. Everybody should be one paycheck away from financial ruin, or the system just isn't fair.”
Instead, we should recognize that unions have worked for public employees and that we should demand unions for ourselves. We should run every company, from Walmart on down, out of business that does not allow its employees to unionize. The right to join in social groups for a common good is a moral right and a right defended by the Catholic Church and by the UN Declaration of human rights.
It’s time we begin to stop listening to divisive rhetoric -- whether from Fox of MSNBC -- and start uniting to make our lives better.
As I’ve tried to state over and over, it’s exactly this attitude that the media, the government, and business want to encourage among everyone. It’s divisive at heart, and what better serves those in power than to keep us who are not in power divided among ourselves? What better way to maintain the system as is than to keep those of us who have an interest in changing the system divided among ourselves?
Yes, we should sympathize with Erin McFarlane who has been laid off and is now working part time jobs. We should sympathize with everyone who cannot retire and live comfortable at 65 for a good 30 or 40 years (and maybe longer). What we should not do -- what we should never do -- is see this as something others have and we don’t. Rather, we should investigate whose interests this really serves.
Otherwise, we are left with the conclusion that my colleague Bob posted: “I'm so horribly mad at families earning $75,000 per year including benefits. They are milking the system to death. Everybody should be one paycheck away from financial ruin, or the system just isn't fair.”
Instead, we should recognize that unions have worked for public employees and that we should demand unions for ourselves. We should run every company, from Walmart on down, out of business that does not allow its employees to unionize. The right to join in social groups for a common good is a moral right and a right defended by the Catholic Church and by the UN Declaration of human rights.
It’s time we begin to stop listening to divisive rhetoric -- whether from Fox of MSNBC -- and start uniting to make our lives better.
Unemployment and Wanting Jobs
04/03/11 13:10
In a recent conversation with someone I consider a long-time friend and whom I respect, the discussion turned to people expecting the system to give them what they need rather than working for what they need or want. We often hear, especially during times of crisis, that unemployment is due to people being lazy or not wanting to work. They expect the system to pay them for sitting around and watching TV or having babies. I can remember people decrying the welfare queens throughout the 80’s and early 90’s. What I never heard, though, was why someone would want to stay at home with a bunch of crying babies just to avoid work? Note well, I was a registered Republican back then. Something should be said here, of course, about the idea of work and whether work includes taking care of children and the household, but I shall leave that aside for now.
Rather, I want to turn to this set of charts at The Atlantic. They compare the number of people that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts being unemployed compared to those who want to work but do not count as being unemployed. Noticed that the number of marginalized has grown even when jobs have been added to economy. These are people who for whatever reason cannot find work. As a matter of fact, we know that if people are out of work for a long time, employers mistrust them and think that their lack of work is due to their own unwillingness rather than to the facts about the economy -- surely a poor judgment on the part of the employer.
The question these charts raise will most likely be hidden by the release of the new jobs created in February -- close to 200,000 jobs. Yet the question needs to be asked: why aren’t people who want to work working?
In On the Condition of Labor, Pope Leo XIII wrote that most people want to work. In On the Progress of Peoples, Paul VI wrote that people want “To do more, to learn more, to have more. The popes emphasize what I think is true: people want to work; they want to engage in those activities which they find meaningful and fulfilling. The problem is, as I’ve noted here before, that capitalism undermines those things which truly make us human -- the development of those truly human powers and abilities that define our species.
Which takes me back to that first question: does anyone prefer sitting around a house listening to babies cry? Maybe, but they do so because they find it meaningful work. Others, however, might prefer to get out of the house and pursue some other work but can’t find the work. Which, of course, returns us to the unemployment figures.
These figures are a disgrace to any human culture. They testify to a system or a structure of systems that denies human modes of being to a group of human people -- in this case, somewhere close to 15% of the American population, which does not include those who work part-time and would prefer full-time work.
Of course, some people would prefer to sit on the couch and watch television. I’ve met people like that. That raises other questions, however: why? Here I think we need turn no further than the system we live under. It’s a system that encourages the greatest pursuit of pleasure at the least cost. Sitting on the couch and watching television, if you can get away with it, is not a human way of life, but it is essentially a capitalist way of life.
Unemployment stands as a testament to our depraved way of life. A drop in the numbers only numbs us to that moral reality.
Rather, I want to turn to this set of charts at The Atlantic. They compare the number of people that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts being unemployed compared to those who want to work but do not count as being unemployed. Noticed that the number of marginalized has grown even when jobs have been added to economy. These are people who for whatever reason cannot find work. As a matter of fact, we know that if people are out of work for a long time, employers mistrust them and think that their lack of work is due to their own unwillingness rather than to the facts about the economy -- surely a poor judgment on the part of the employer.
The question these charts raise will most likely be hidden by the release of the new jobs created in February -- close to 200,000 jobs. Yet the question needs to be asked: why aren’t people who want to work working?
In On the Condition of Labor, Pope Leo XIII wrote that most people want to work. In On the Progress of Peoples, Paul VI wrote that people want “To do more, to learn more, to have more. The popes emphasize what I think is true: people want to work; they want to engage in those activities which they find meaningful and fulfilling. The problem is, as I’ve noted here before, that capitalism undermines those things which truly make us human -- the development of those truly human powers and abilities that define our species.
Which takes me back to that first question: does anyone prefer sitting around a house listening to babies cry? Maybe, but they do so because they find it meaningful work. Others, however, might prefer to get out of the house and pursue some other work but can’t find the work. Which, of course, returns us to the unemployment figures.
These figures are a disgrace to any human culture. They testify to a system or a structure of systems that denies human modes of being to a group of human people -- in this case, somewhere close to 15% of the American population, which does not include those who work part-time and would prefer full-time work.
Of course, some people would prefer to sit on the couch and watch television. I’ve met people like that. That raises other questions, however: why? Here I think we need turn no further than the system we live under. It’s a system that encourages the greatest pursuit of pleasure at the least cost. Sitting on the couch and watching television, if you can get away with it, is not a human way of life, but it is essentially a capitalist way of life.
Unemployment stands as a testament to our depraved way of life. A drop in the numbers only numbs us to that moral reality.
Catholics and Unions
25/02/11 10:03
News reports today note that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports the people protesting for rights to unionization and collective bargaining in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. It is right for them to do so.
While Catholic Social Teaching is Catholicism’s Best Kept Secret, it remains part of canon law. Many might not know this, but the encyclicals of the popes comprise canon law and should be followed by honest and faithful Catholics.
This means, of course, that every Catholic in Wisconsin and throughout the United States who does not stand up with the protestors, who do not march against those who would violate these rights to unionization the same way they march to protect human life from birth to death, are violating Catholic teaching, are, in fact, sinning.
Please pray for and stand with those who fight for human rights to unionization.
While Catholic Social Teaching is Catholicism’s Best Kept Secret, it remains part of canon law. Many might not know this, but the encyclicals of the popes comprise canon law and should be followed by honest and faithful Catholics.
This means, of course, that every Catholic in Wisconsin and throughout the United States who does not stand up with the protestors, who do not march against those who would violate these rights to unionization the same way they march to protect human life from birth to death, are violating Catholic teaching, are, in fact, sinning.
Please pray for and stand with those who fight for human rights to unionization.
Wisconsin and Public Unions
21/02/11 13:29
With support from Mother Jones, Forbes notes that the Kock brothers are behind the attacks on public unions in Wisconsin, while simultaneously laying off 158 people from their paper mill, not for lack of demand, but because of better machinery.
Note, of course, that laying off so many people is easy to do when you don’t have a union protecting jobs. Note further that the Koch brothers help fund the Tea Party movement -- people upset about unemployment and blaming it on the government. This is a form of what George Orwell called double think: believing in two contradictory theses at the same time. The longer we continue to believe that jobs can be protected by getting rid of unions, the longer we continue to fall into the hands of those self-seeking individuals out only for profit. Note, also, that the Koch brothers are billionaires who fight against employee rights, environmental protection, and universal health care, supporting Republican and Tea Party candidates wherever they can. Clearly, this is a form of class warfare.
We must be careful, here, of course, because some of our own most sacred beliefs underlie what the Koch brothers are doing through Governor Walker in Wisconsin. Primarily these are beliefs in individualism and capitalism. Both of these are ideologies, by which I mean they are beliefs that essentially prevent human flourishing by exaggerating one aspect of human life at the expense of others. Yes, human beings are individual persons -- but we are individuals in society and cannot exist without society, as I’ve discussed. Yes, human beings have claims to property, but at the service of individual and community progress, not without limit. We must break from these ideologies if we are ever to move to a truly integrated society, like that called for by various popes in their social encyclicals, like that promoted by Alasdair MacIntyre, like that idealized by Aristotle.
Standing for unions is a step in the right directions. These unions must be focused on the development and protection of jobs in the local communities that support strong local markets -- what MacIntyre calls truly free markets.
Note, of course, that laying off so many people is easy to do when you don’t have a union protecting jobs. Note further that the Koch brothers help fund the Tea Party movement -- people upset about unemployment and blaming it on the government. This is a form of what George Orwell called double think: believing in two contradictory theses at the same time. The longer we continue to believe that jobs can be protected by getting rid of unions, the longer we continue to fall into the hands of those self-seeking individuals out only for profit. Note, also, that the Koch brothers are billionaires who fight against employee rights, environmental protection, and universal health care, supporting Republican and Tea Party candidates wherever they can. Clearly, this is a form of class warfare.
We must be careful, here, of course, because some of our own most sacred beliefs underlie what the Koch brothers are doing through Governor Walker in Wisconsin. Primarily these are beliefs in individualism and capitalism. Both of these are ideologies, by which I mean they are beliefs that essentially prevent human flourishing by exaggerating one aspect of human life at the expense of others. Yes, human beings are individual persons -- but we are individuals in society and cannot exist without society, as I’ve discussed. Yes, human beings have claims to property, but at the service of individual and community progress, not without limit. We must break from these ideologies if we are ever to move to a truly integrated society, like that called for by various popes in their social encyclicals, like that promoted by Alasdair MacIntyre, like that idealized by Aristotle.
Standing for unions is a step in the right directions. These unions must be focused on the development and protection of jobs in the local communities that support strong local markets -- what MacIntyre calls truly free markets.
Ain't That America: Wisconsin's Union Busting
17/02/11 13:08
I’ve already reported on union busting in Ohio. Now, Fox News reports on a bill in Wisconsin that will, among other things, remove collective bargaining for state employees, including teachers. One can almost accept what one republican senator states:
Republican state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. "What this is is about the budget. We're $3.6 billion in the hole. We're not going to raise taxes to solve it. We all ran, you know, this last election cycle on saying that we are going to cut government spending. ... Everybody is going to have to do their part."
Except, closing a budget gap has nothing to do with removing collective bargaining rights. Removing collective bargaining rights, rights that both the United Nations, the United States, and Catholic Social Teaching demand, can only be seen as an attack on employees -- an attack on human beings as human beings.
In fact, TPM reports
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
Here we have clear examples of how lawmakers (in this case, Republicans) are actively attacking workers in order to provide cuts for businesses. Moreover, Governor Walker has threatened the use of the national guard in case people protest the legislation. Once more, we see that America is no longer the dream of people who believed in democracy and hoped for a better future. It has fallen to fear-mongering and capitalistic interests.
The question becomes, will people in Wisconsin and in Ohio and throughout the United States march for their rights and for government that represents the people and not the corporation? Will we take inspiration from Tunisia and Egypt, from Yemen and Bahrain, or will we continue to let government and business walk all over us because capitalism is the best and because democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest?
True democracy means we all participate for the common good. What Wisconsin and Ohio lawmakers are doing serves, not the common good, but the corporate good.
Republican state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. "What this is is about the budget. We're $3.6 billion in the hole. We're not going to raise taxes to solve it. We all ran, you know, this last election cycle on saying that we are going to cut government spending. ... Everybody is going to have to do their part."
Except, closing a budget gap has nothing to do with removing collective bargaining rights. Removing collective bargaining rights, rights that both the United Nations, the United States, and Catholic Social Teaching demand, can only be seen as an attack on employees -- an attack on human beings as human beings.
In fact, TPM reports
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
Here we have clear examples of how lawmakers (in this case, Republicans) are actively attacking workers in order to provide cuts for businesses. Moreover, Governor Walker has threatened the use of the national guard in case people protest the legislation. Once more, we see that America is no longer the dream of people who believed in democracy and hoped for a better future. It has fallen to fear-mongering and capitalistic interests.
The question becomes, will people in Wisconsin and in Ohio and throughout the United States march for their rights and for government that represents the people and not the corporation? Will we take inspiration from Tunisia and Egypt, from Yemen and Bahrain, or will we continue to let government and business walk all over us because capitalism is the best and because democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest?
True democracy means we all participate for the common good. What Wisconsin and Ohio lawmakers are doing serves, not the common good, but the corporate good.
Obama, Spending, and Defense
16/02/11 14:06
Amy Goodman reports that Obama’s released budget includes cuts to spending that helps the old pay for heating while increasing defense spending. The cuts that are tagged for defense are not, in fact, cuts at all. It’s like when you go shopping and find a sale: in fact, the sale price often reflects the “normal” price because it is “reduced” from a proposed increase in the price. In other words, it’s a marketing scheme to get people to buy something. But just who is Obama and the Pentagon marketing to?
To us? But we aren’t buying, right. Because we really have no say in what the government allocates our tax money to pay for. Or do we?
We do, if we decide to become involved in politics, if we decide to vote outside the box and elect neither democrat or republican, or the pseudo-republicans in disguise known as the Tea Party. We have a voice if we decide to use it.
We have to resist arguments like that of Robert Gates who says greater cuts will jeopardize American security. As I’ve reported before, our spending far exceeds that of the rest of the world. In fact, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.
The question, then, is whether we will continue to allow Gates and Obama, democrats and republicans, to confuse the issue and choose to serve the military-industrial complex, or whether we will demand, as people all throughout the Middle East and North Africa are, that government serve us.
For in the end, we are the government, whether we realize it or not.
To us? But we aren’t buying, right. Because we really have no say in what the government allocates our tax money to pay for. Or do we?
We do, if we decide to become involved in politics, if we decide to vote outside the box and elect neither democrat or republican, or the pseudo-republicans in disguise known as the Tea Party. We have a voice if we decide to use it.
We have to resist arguments like that of Robert Gates who says greater cuts will jeopardize American security. As I’ve reported before, our spending far exceeds that of the rest of the world. In fact, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.
The question, then, is whether we will continue to allow Gates and Obama, democrats and republicans, to confuse the issue and choose to serve the military-industrial complex, or whether we will demand, as people all throughout the Middle East and North Africa are, that government serve us.
For in the end, we are the government, whether we realize it or not.
Ohio and Education: SB 5, 2011
11/02/11 10:25
The Examiner reports that Ohio Senate Bill 5 will end collective bargaining for public employees. Republican Governor Kasich said it’s necessary to allow transparency to the public so they can see where they’re taxes are going. Of course, that’s hog’s wash. It’s an excuse that he would deny in many other cases where transparency is necessary. What SB5 does is remove autonomy from public employees.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
Egypt and the Common Good
07/02/11 10:04
Egypt looks like it may be moving forward. The opposition has met with a representative of the current government to discuss transitioning to a future government. Still, Mubarak has not resigned as of today (7 February 2011) and protestors still stand in Tahrir Square demanding his immediate abdication -- rightly so.
Yet, the coming months -- years even -- will be as mentally and spiritually trying as the last 10 days have been physically and emotionally. What the Egyptian people must do not is come to some understanding of what they want in their government and for their lives in the foreseeable future. This task means grappling with some central issues: what is a government? What is the purpose of government? Why are we coming together as Egyptians to make a government? Is there something here more than my own individual interest?
This last question clearly marks the true task of any group of citizens. In the modern West, we have answered the question ambiguously at best by saying that maybe there is something other than my own self-interest, but we’ve been unable to define it. This inability to define a common good undergirds the inability to provide adequate housing, employment, education, and health care for Americans. We see government as antagonistic to human happiness. We define government the way that Adam Smith did: a structural means of insuring protection of the free market. The historical question now is whether the Egyptians will define government negatively as we have.
They have reason to do so. Mubarak’s government has oppressed and terrorized the citizens of Egypt for three decades, all with the support of the United States and our allies.
As Aristotle would say, however, that marks a bad government, not government per se. Government should promote the well-being of all of its citizens. That government is best, Aristotle writes, in which each and every citizens can achieve fulfillment. This understanding of government underlies MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism and the Catholic Church’s social teaching on integral development.
Such an understanding of government, however, entails that the citizens embrace a corporatist conception of the common good. The common good consists, not in the aggregate of our individual interests, but in the good of the society which is a constitutive element of who we are and of our well-being. Education is a common good -- it is something that goes beyond my individual interest in that it provides an adequate education for all which betters society in general, not just my individual life. A society that can produce Shakespeares and Nobokovs is a much better society than one that cannot. The individualism that mars Western society can never understand that point.
It is up to the Egyptian people, then, whether they want to be go down our well-trodden path or whether they want to embark on a new form of democracy that can be the truly best form of government. Doing so, though, means radical and tough discussions about the common good.
Yet, the coming months -- years even -- will be as mentally and spiritually trying as the last 10 days have been physically and emotionally. What the Egyptian people must do not is come to some understanding of what they want in their government and for their lives in the foreseeable future. This task means grappling with some central issues: what is a government? What is the purpose of government? Why are we coming together as Egyptians to make a government? Is there something here more than my own individual interest?
This last question clearly marks the true task of any group of citizens. In the modern West, we have answered the question ambiguously at best by saying that maybe there is something other than my own self-interest, but we’ve been unable to define it. This inability to define a common good undergirds the inability to provide adequate housing, employment, education, and health care for Americans. We see government as antagonistic to human happiness. We define government the way that Adam Smith did: a structural means of insuring protection of the free market. The historical question now is whether the Egyptians will define government negatively as we have.
They have reason to do so. Mubarak’s government has oppressed and terrorized the citizens of Egypt for three decades, all with the support of the United States and our allies.
As Aristotle would say, however, that marks a bad government, not government per se. Government should promote the well-being of all of its citizens. That government is best, Aristotle writes, in which each and every citizens can achieve fulfillment. This understanding of government underlies MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism and the Catholic Church’s social teaching on integral development.
Such an understanding of government, however, entails that the citizens embrace a corporatist conception of the common good. The common good consists, not in the aggregate of our individual interests, but in the good of the society which is a constitutive element of who we are and of our well-being. Education is a common good -- it is something that goes beyond my individual interest in that it provides an adequate education for all which betters society in general, not just my individual life. A society that can produce Shakespeares and Nobokovs is a much better society than one that cannot. The individualism that mars Western society can never understand that point.
It is up to the Egyptian people, then, whether they want to be go down our well-trodden path or whether they want to embark on a new form of democracy that can be the truly best form of government. Doing so, though, means radical and tough discussions about the common good.
Philosophy, Politics, Pluralism
28/01/11 10:11
Lately, I’ve thought much about the role of philosophy in society, particularly in bringing about social justice and helping to create a well-ordered society, for lack of a better word. I’ve also thought about theology in relation to these issues. If one believe in God, believes that God is the final destination of human beings, what does that mean for society, for social organization, and for social justice? How can one order a society, or suggest principles for a just society, when one believes so much about God, yet knows that society is marked by pluralism -- religious pluralism, as well as philosophical, political, and cultural pluralism.
I am not, of course, the first to ask these questions nor the last, I’m sure. Jacques Maritain wrote that one of the characteristics of a society of free persons is that it is Christian or theistic, not in the sense that every member of society would be required to believe in God, but in that
The problem, of course, is that society’s religious pluralism means that no pluralistic society can recognize these things as such. Must we, then, separate into distinct enclaves? Such an answer does not help, partly because these individual conclaves form a society of themselves. That is, they need rules and laws to organize their relations with each other. So where does that leave the Christian? It is not enough to say that not everyone believe in God, for, according to Maritain, his society is “organically linked to religion.” Such an organic link cannot be maintained at the social level in a pluralistic society.
First, it is clear that theology or religion cannot answer the question here better than any other approach. Theology might have something to say about what sort of answer we should look for, but it cannot provide an answer because it ipso facto excludes the non-religious and the other-religious from its scope. Yet, can such an answer satisfy the one who believes that God is the end of society and the end of human persons?
Nor should we deny that in some rare instances some societies have existed which in fact were theistic, pluralistic, and supported freedom of individual persons -- al-Andalus being a primary example.
Second, it seems also clear that any answer to this set of questions must examine the purpose of society. Philosophy primarily carries the burden of answering that question based, to be sure, on empirical studies of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics, among others. Yet, I’ve already said that philosophy itself is disputed within pluralistic societies. Philosophy, however, offers something that theology cannot offer in this case: an appeal to reason which all people are subject to. In fact, if the nature of philosophy is disputed, it might be that one task of society is to provide an arena for such disputes to occur, and this can provide a foundation for a society of free persons.
Here, then, we see some light, for what the nature of philosophy shows us is similar to what the nature of that strange creature homo sapiens shows us. Human beings are made for relational engagement with other as evidenced by the primacy of language and communication in their everyday lives and the primacy of dispute and social argumentation in philosophy. If we can agree to that, we might move even further along the road to addressing society.
I am not, of course, the first to ask these questions nor the last, I’m sure. Jacques Maritain wrote that one of the characteristics of a society of free persons is that it is Christian or theistic, not in the sense that every member of society would be required to believe in God, but in that
society recognizes God as the principle and end of the human person and prime source of natural law, is by the same token the prime source of political society and authority among [people]; and in that sense that it recognizes that the currents of liberty and fraternity released by the Gospel, the virtues of justice and friendship sanctioned by it, the practical respect for the human person proclaimed by it, the feeling of responsibility before God required by it, as much from him who exercises the authority as form him who is subject to it, are the internal energy which civilization needs for its fulfillment.
The problem, of course, is that society’s religious pluralism means that no pluralistic society can recognize these things as such. Must we, then, separate into distinct enclaves? Such an answer does not help, partly because these individual conclaves form a society of themselves. That is, they need rules and laws to organize their relations with each other. So where does that leave the Christian? It is not enough to say that not everyone believe in God, for, according to Maritain, his society is “organically linked to religion.” Such an organic link cannot be maintained at the social level in a pluralistic society.
First, it is clear that theology or religion cannot answer the question here better than any other approach. Theology might have something to say about what sort of answer we should look for, but it cannot provide an answer because it ipso facto excludes the non-religious and the other-religious from its scope. Yet, can such an answer satisfy the one who believes that God is the end of society and the end of human persons?
Nor should we deny that in some rare instances some societies have existed which in fact were theistic, pluralistic, and supported freedom of individual persons -- al-Andalus being a primary example.
Second, it seems also clear that any answer to this set of questions must examine the purpose of society. Philosophy primarily carries the burden of answering that question based, to be sure, on empirical studies of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics, among others. Yet, I’ve already said that philosophy itself is disputed within pluralistic societies. Philosophy, however, offers something that theology cannot offer in this case: an appeal to reason which all people are subject to. In fact, if the nature of philosophy is disputed, it might be that one task of society is to provide an arena for such disputes to occur, and this can provide a foundation for a society of free persons.
Here, then, we see some light, for what the nature of philosophy shows us is similar to what the nature of that strange creature homo sapiens shows us. Human beings are made for relational engagement with other as evidenced by the primacy of language and communication in their everyday lives and the primacy of dispute and social argumentation in philosophy. If we can agree to that, we might move even further along the road to addressing society.
Torture and Catholics
27/01/11 14:06
A disturbing report shows that Roman Catholics are more likely to approve of torture than not. It should be noted that the sample size is relatively small, and I am reluctant to draw broad conclusions from it about Catholics across the United States. However, the fact remains that at least one sampling of Catholics approve of torture.
When I was growing up, we were taught that Jesus was selected to die by Pontius Pilate to help prevent a riot in Jerusalem in which many more would die. We were clearly taught by Notre Dame nuns that one of the problems with Jesus’ execution is the sacrifice of one for many.
Yet, I’ve taught on the death penalty across the bible belt, in Catholic colleges, and seminaries, and I find that Christians have forgotten this lesson. They argue, instead, that it is okay if a few innocents die if that’s what it takes to punish the guilty.
These attitudes are not Christian attitudes and certainly not Catholic attitudes. I do not mean, of course, to deny that Christians or even the Catholic Church has tortured people before. The description of such a sin to extract a confession opens Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and we know that torture was used in the inquisition. What I mean, of course, is that Catholic morality and Catholic philosophy call us to a different approach, and the fact that many Catholics either ignore or rationalize away this approach shows that the priests, bishops, and pope are not doing their job.
If you can look at the cross and recognize the suffering that Jesus Christ went through to redeem human beings and call yourself a Catholic and yet approve of torture for any reason, then you don’t understand the Cross and you don’t understand Jesus.
Of course, many will challenge me on this: what if it were your family who was threatened and the only way to get them help is to torture someone? That’s playing cheap and dirty. Of course, I would do anything I can to help my family. I also know, however, that torture rarely, if ever, gets accurate information, and all I would do in torturing someone is bring myself to their level. This is why the Joker is so effective in The Dark Knight. He doesn’t care that he gives information - wrong information -- to Batman. He’s caused Batman to lose his soul for just a little bit.
Torture is wrong and cannot be justified for any reason. That’s especially true if you are Catholic or believe in a loving God.
When I was growing up, we were taught that Jesus was selected to die by Pontius Pilate to help prevent a riot in Jerusalem in which many more would die. We were clearly taught by Notre Dame nuns that one of the problems with Jesus’ execution is the sacrifice of one for many.
Yet, I’ve taught on the death penalty across the bible belt, in Catholic colleges, and seminaries, and I find that Christians have forgotten this lesson. They argue, instead, that it is okay if a few innocents die if that’s what it takes to punish the guilty.
These attitudes are not Christian attitudes and certainly not Catholic attitudes. I do not mean, of course, to deny that Christians or even the Catholic Church has tortured people before. The description of such a sin to extract a confession opens Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and we know that torture was used in the inquisition. What I mean, of course, is that Catholic morality and Catholic philosophy call us to a different approach, and the fact that many Catholics either ignore or rationalize away this approach shows that the priests, bishops, and pope are not doing their job.
If you can look at the cross and recognize the suffering that Jesus Christ went through to redeem human beings and call yourself a Catholic and yet approve of torture for any reason, then you don’t understand the Cross and you don’t understand Jesus.
Of course, many will challenge me on this: what if it were your family who was threatened and the only way to get them help is to torture someone? That’s playing cheap and dirty. Of course, I would do anything I can to help my family. I also know, however, that torture rarely, if ever, gets accurate information, and all I would do in torturing someone is bring myself to their level. This is why the Joker is so effective in The Dark Knight. He doesn’t care that he gives information - wrong information -- to Batman. He’s caused Batman to lose his soul for just a little bit.
Torture is wrong and cannot be justified for any reason. That’s especially true if you are Catholic or believe in a loving God.
State of the Union 2011 -- Reflections
26/01/11 10:29
Here are my reflections on Obama’s SOTU for 2011.
“Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”
It’s interesting that Obama does not reflect here on his own challenge during the Presidential campaign that the United States be a developer of first rate green energy before China develops it. Wouldn’t this moment be one for reflecting on his own failures in creating jobs over the last two years and of Congress not moving forward ob green initiatives?
“Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the
naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous
economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours.”
Here, rather than questioning his own administration, Obama misses a chance to question what is going on in the economy in America. Yes, our workers are more productive -- more productive than they were 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. So why has not the wealth that comes from this production been shared by workers? Instead, workers have seen their wages stagnate while CEO’s pay and bonuses increase exponentially.
“What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.”
True, but then the question becomes, what is required for each person to shape their destiny? How best do we shape society so that each person can pursue her own dreams and goals?
“We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”
What does this mean? And why must we make America the best place to do business rather than the best place to achieve individual fulfillment and realization? There is no questioning here of the capitalist paradigm, which means it works as an ideology in our country masking the true issues that can make American lives better.
“We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government.”
Both of these points are true, but Obama has done nothing to do either. First, allowing the tax-cuts for the richest Americans to continue meant NOT taking care of our deficit. Second, reform in government means giving each person a voice, not simply a vote.
“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation.”
Is this true? Should it be true?
“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.”
This example suggests not. It suggests that what motivates innovation is an idea of a common good and heroic leadership. Where are these in our country today?
“I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow’s.”
This is certainly a start. The question becomes, is it too little too late?
“And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.”
Of course this ignores the questions about what are the root causes of such failures? Is it our allocation of resources to schools? Why is it that a racial divide appears here? How do we see education? These are primary questions for reforming education, questions we must answer as a nation.
“Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”
And how are they to do this when they are both working?
“And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.”
Again, another step, but too little for sure. What is the average cost of college today?
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.”
Safe?
“This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of
hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to
things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary
of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that
he and his generals believe our military can do without.”
This reminds me of the parable of the poor woman who gave a penny and the rich man who gave a dollar. Why must the poor sacrifice when they’ve already have stagnated wages and the rich military-industrial complex has sustained increase after increase? We should remember that a budget is a moral document -- it tells our values. Where are American values?
“But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.”
Another example where innovation was spurred by love of humankind and not love of money.
There are no surprises in Obama’s speech. It follows a traditional format, laying out plans that do not address the real struggles of every day human beings, praising the army, and threatening cuts to human services rather than to that which destroys human beings. It is up to us, however, to demand more voice in our government, more direction of the money it spends, and more resources in pursuing our personal dreams which have little to do with money and much to do with friendship and love for those around us.
“Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”
It’s interesting that Obama does not reflect here on his own challenge during the Presidential campaign that the United States be a developer of first rate green energy before China develops it. Wouldn’t this moment be one for reflecting on his own failures in creating jobs over the last two years and of Congress not moving forward ob green initiatives?
“Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the
naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous
economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours.”
Here, rather than questioning his own administration, Obama misses a chance to question what is going on in the economy in America. Yes, our workers are more productive -- more productive than they were 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. So why has not the wealth that comes from this production been shared by workers? Instead, workers have seen their wages stagnate while CEO’s pay and bonuses increase exponentially.
“What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.”
True, but then the question becomes, what is required for each person to shape their destiny? How best do we shape society so that each person can pursue her own dreams and goals?
“We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”
What does this mean? And why must we make America the best place to do business rather than the best place to achieve individual fulfillment and realization? There is no questioning here of the capitalist paradigm, which means it works as an ideology in our country masking the true issues that can make American lives better.
“We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government.”
Both of these points are true, but Obama has done nothing to do either. First, allowing the tax-cuts for the richest Americans to continue meant NOT taking care of our deficit. Second, reform in government means giving each person a voice, not simply a vote.
“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation.”
Is this true? Should it be true?
“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.”
This example suggests not. It suggests that what motivates innovation is an idea of a common good and heroic leadership. Where are these in our country today?
“I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow’s.”
This is certainly a start. The question becomes, is it too little too late?
“And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.”
Of course this ignores the questions about what are the root causes of such failures? Is it our allocation of resources to schools? Why is it that a racial divide appears here? How do we see education? These are primary questions for reforming education, questions we must answer as a nation.
“Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”
And how are they to do this when they are both working?
“And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.”
Again, another step, but too little for sure. What is the average cost of college today?
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.”
Safe?
“This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of
hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to
things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary
of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that
he and his generals believe our military can do without.”
This reminds me of the parable of the poor woman who gave a penny and the rich man who gave a dollar. Why must the poor sacrifice when they’ve already have stagnated wages and the rich military-industrial complex has sustained increase after increase? We should remember that a budget is a moral document -- it tells our values. Where are American values?
“But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.”
Another example where innovation was spurred by love of humankind and not love of money.
There are no surprises in Obama’s speech. It follows a traditional format, laying out plans that do not address the real struggles of every day human beings, praising the army, and threatening cuts to human services rather than to that which destroys human beings. It is up to us, however, to demand more voice in our government, more direction of the money it spends, and more resources in pursuing our personal dreams which have little to do with money and much to do with friendship and love for those around us.
Roe v Wade 2011
21/01/11 11:35
We remember the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion on Saturday. 53 million persons have been aborted since 1973, at best count.
Despite that significant and large attack on human life, the Roman Catholic Church, other churches, and conservatives in the United States are fighting a meaningless battle. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a waste of resources, makes the Church appear antagonistic to women, and detracts our attention from the real issues which will reduce the number of murders that occur annually, viz., proper health care and sex education, education in general, defense of women and bodily integrity, and a rejection of capitalism as a root cause of abortion.
Why is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade senseless? Because of the practical politics of the situation. While the moral principles the Church uses are correct, they are either not cognizant of or dismissive of the real political reality in the United States. That political reality is the following:
1. A sitting president chooses at most 2 supreme court judges per eight-year term. The president would have to choose enough nominees to create a secure substantial majority on the court to overturn RvW. Yet, often those who retire are in fact already allies to the cause. So the president does not have the viable opportunity to appoint enough members to court to overturn RvW.
2. Even if the president could appoint enough magistrates to overturn RvW, the president cannot guarantee that his choice would in fact overturn RvW. See Reagan and his nominees.
3. Even if the president could be certain AND could appoint enough nominees, they would have to be approved by congress who would surely not approve overturning RvW, and for at least two reasons.
First, it is congress’ self interest not to overturn RvW because it allows them to attract traditional allies in their run for office. No one wants to undermine their base on either side.
Second, the corporate powers who choose nominees for the citizens to vote on do not want to overturn RvW, and this for two reasons.
First, because keeping people distracted by RvW means they have control over the electorate and because it means people will not challenge capitalism.
Second, because it provides too much money for the corporations.
4. Even if the president could be certain AND she could appoint enough magistrates AND could get congress to approve them, all that would happen is that the abortion decision would switch to the states. In other words, there would either be no decrease in abortion OR there will be no decrease in abortion AND there will be an increase in back-alley abortions which maim and kill women. Why?
This fact is the most essential reason why the Catholic Church and others are wasting their time, resources, and focus on the real issues. Overturning RvW means that individual states then set the limits, if any, to abortion. Since not all states will limit access to abortion, then people in any state will be able to travel to a nearby state for an abortion. Overturning RvW would, at best, take the fight to each individual state which will lead to more sectarian violence, to greater divisions between the states and, thus, an greater destabilization of the government, and greater waste of resources, while continuing to loose focus on the real issues.
The real issues are those which lead women to choose to have abortions: lack of jobs, lack of stable families, career-focus, poor health care, poor communities, etc. The real foe in the abortion debate is not Roe v Wade; the real foe is capitalism and the individualism that terrorizes our country. Until the Church takes a more consistent ethic of life approach and a more supportive attitude toward women, then nothing will be done to end the murder that continues each year -- every day -- in the United States and around the world.
Despite that significant and large attack on human life, the Roman Catholic Church, other churches, and conservatives in the United States are fighting a meaningless battle. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a waste of resources, makes the Church appear antagonistic to women, and detracts our attention from the real issues which will reduce the number of murders that occur annually, viz., proper health care and sex education, education in general, defense of women and bodily integrity, and a rejection of capitalism as a root cause of abortion.
Why is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade senseless? Because of the practical politics of the situation. While the moral principles the Church uses are correct, they are either not cognizant of or dismissive of the real political reality in the United States. That political reality is the following:
1. A sitting president chooses at most 2 supreme court judges per eight-year term. The president would have to choose enough nominees to create a secure substantial majority on the court to overturn RvW. Yet, often those who retire are in fact already allies to the cause. So the president does not have the viable opportunity to appoint enough members to court to overturn RvW.
2. Even if the president could appoint enough magistrates to overturn RvW, the president cannot guarantee that his choice would in fact overturn RvW. See Reagan and his nominees.
3. Even if the president could be certain AND could appoint enough nominees, they would have to be approved by congress who would surely not approve overturning RvW, and for at least two reasons.
First, it is congress’ self interest not to overturn RvW because it allows them to attract traditional allies in their run for office. No one wants to undermine their base on either side.
Second, the corporate powers who choose nominees for the citizens to vote on do not want to overturn RvW, and this for two reasons.
First, because keeping people distracted by RvW means they have control over the electorate and because it means people will not challenge capitalism.
Second, because it provides too much money for the corporations.
4. Even if the president could be certain AND she could appoint enough magistrates AND could get congress to approve them, all that would happen is that the abortion decision would switch to the states. In other words, there would either be no decrease in abortion OR there will be no decrease in abortion AND there will be an increase in back-alley abortions which maim and kill women. Why?
This fact is the most essential reason why the Catholic Church and others are wasting their time, resources, and focus on the real issues. Overturning RvW means that individual states then set the limits, if any, to abortion. Since not all states will limit access to abortion, then people in any state will be able to travel to a nearby state for an abortion. Overturning RvW would, at best, take the fight to each individual state which will lead to more sectarian violence, to greater divisions between the states and, thus, an greater destabilization of the government, and greater waste of resources, while continuing to loose focus on the real issues.
The real issues are those which lead women to choose to have abortions: lack of jobs, lack of stable families, career-focus, poor health care, poor communities, etc. The real foe in the abortion debate is not Roe v Wade; the real foe is capitalism and the individualism that terrorizes our country. Until the Church takes a more consistent ethic of life approach and a more supportive attitude toward women, then nothing will be done to end the murder that continues each year -- every day -- in the United States and around the world.
Jack Kennedy's Legacy
20/01/11 12:32
Today, January 20th, 2011, commemorates President John Kennedy’s inauguration speech. Beginning his speech, Kennedy said “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
This claim is s true today, if not more so, as it was 50 years ago. We can abolish poverty, as I noted in an earlier post about our war spending. What we lack is the political and cultural will to do so. Why? Why do we continue to condemn ourselves?
Kennedy continued in his speech: “proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”
I’ve already spoken of these human rights this week. They are our legacy to the future earth, if anyone and anything survives the darkness that surrounds us. Those human rights include the positiver rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Such rights rest on the ability of human beings to be safe in themselves and to own property by which they may work and make a living of their lives. They also include the rights to govern our own lives, rights which we see attacked across the world and within our own country.
Considering such rights, Kennedy makes a pledge to emerging countries. “To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.”
How far have we fallen from this promise? We continue to press our own selfish corporate interests in Latin America as we support proto-military units that bust unions and execute those who fight for social justice. We continue to press for our own interests in the Middle East, where we kill thousands of others, shaking such deaths off as “collateral damage.” Let us recall Kennedy’s promise and fight for rights everywhere -- rights of life and liberty for each and every person.
Kennedy ends his speech with this call:
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
May we find, in our every day lives, a willingness and a strength to answer his call.
This claim is s true today, if not more so, as it was 50 years ago. We can abolish poverty, as I noted in an earlier post about our war spending. What we lack is the political and cultural will to do so. Why? Why do we continue to condemn ourselves?
Kennedy continued in his speech: “proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”
I’ve already spoken of these human rights this week. They are our legacy to the future earth, if anyone and anything survives the darkness that surrounds us. Those human rights include the positiver rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Such rights rest on the ability of human beings to be safe in themselves and to own property by which they may work and make a living of their lives. They also include the rights to govern our own lives, rights which we see attacked across the world and within our own country.
Considering such rights, Kennedy makes a pledge to emerging countries. “To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.”
How far have we fallen from this promise? We continue to press our own selfish corporate interests in Latin America as we support proto-military units that bust unions and execute those who fight for social justice. We continue to press for our own interests in the Middle East, where we kill thousands of others, shaking such deaths off as “collateral damage.” Let us recall Kennedy’s promise and fight for rights everywhere -- rights of life and liberty for each and every person.
Kennedy ends his speech with this call:
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
May we find, in our every day lives, a willingness and a strength to answer his call.
Unity, Church, and the Seamless Garment
18/01/11 10:30
In yesterday’s post, I reflected on Martin Luther King jr.’s last speech reminding us that we need unity if we are to fight oppression. I want to extend that reflection today to address a specifically Catholic/Christian issue: the right to life.
In the United States, and elsewhere, abortion has become a dominant issue for the Catholic Church energizing the laity in a way few other things can. Rightly, it should energize the laity, and rightly, the Church has reversed a centuries long teaching to condemn abortion. What we know about the first stages of human life is simple: the zygote is created from a sperm and egg. The difference: the sperm and the egg each have 23 chromosomes (usually), but the zygote has 46 (usually) -- the full compliment of human DNA. The human zygote is not just human effluvia, but a full-fledged human being, and we are committed to protecting life.
What has happened, however, is that the Church has become polarized between a Right To Life contingent and a Social Justice contingent. Pro-life groups will elevate abortion to special status or become single-issue voters and ignore other issues of social justice. Social Justice groups can tend to become single-issue voters as well, though I’ve met fewer single-issue voters among that group.
Yet, Church teaching is not so polarized. Instead, in the words of Cardinal Barnardine, Catholic teaching about abortion and jobs is a seamless garment. We cannot ignore issues of unemployment, health care, and environment to focus on abortion not can we ignore the links between abortion and the root causes of unemployment, health care, and the environment.
Take for instance the underlying ideology of our culture: commodity fetishism. We have divorced ourselves from our labor and see in it only a commodity to be exchanged on the open market. Yet, our labor is to a great extent ourselves, so that, when we make of it a commodity, we make of ourselves a commodity. Once we’ve reduced human beings to commodities, there is no problem in seeing zygotes/embryos/fetuses as commodities -- that is, as things.
My point is simple: if we are to end abortion, we must also end the oppression that comes with our dominant way of living in this modern world. We must clothe ourselves in a seamless garment of respect for life which means, not only respect for the unborn, but respect for the old and dying, for the criminal, respect for jobs which are part of human life, respect for the health of our fellow human beings, for what is life without health, and respect for the environment, which is necessary for life. We should not be polarized. We should be united.
And if you want more: consider who has the most abortions: the poor who cannot afford children because they have no jobs and no health care.
In the United States, and elsewhere, abortion has become a dominant issue for the Catholic Church energizing the laity in a way few other things can. Rightly, it should energize the laity, and rightly, the Church has reversed a centuries long teaching to condemn abortion. What we know about the first stages of human life is simple: the zygote is created from a sperm and egg. The difference: the sperm and the egg each have 23 chromosomes (usually), but the zygote has 46 (usually) -- the full compliment of human DNA. The human zygote is not just human effluvia, but a full-fledged human being, and we are committed to protecting life.
What has happened, however, is that the Church has become polarized between a Right To Life contingent and a Social Justice contingent. Pro-life groups will elevate abortion to special status or become single-issue voters and ignore other issues of social justice. Social Justice groups can tend to become single-issue voters as well, though I’ve met fewer single-issue voters among that group.
Yet, Church teaching is not so polarized. Instead, in the words of Cardinal Barnardine, Catholic teaching about abortion and jobs is a seamless garment. We cannot ignore issues of unemployment, health care, and environment to focus on abortion not can we ignore the links between abortion and the root causes of unemployment, health care, and the environment.
Take for instance the underlying ideology of our culture: commodity fetishism. We have divorced ourselves from our labor and see in it only a commodity to be exchanged on the open market. Yet, our labor is to a great extent ourselves, so that, when we make of it a commodity, we make of ourselves a commodity. Once we’ve reduced human beings to commodities, there is no problem in seeing zygotes/embryos/fetuses as commodities -- that is, as things.
My point is simple: if we are to end abortion, we must also end the oppression that comes with our dominant way of living in this modern world. We must clothe ourselves in a seamless garment of respect for life which means, not only respect for the unborn, but respect for the old and dying, for the criminal, respect for jobs which are part of human life, respect for the health of our fellow human beings, for what is life without health, and respect for the environment, which is necessary for life. We should not be polarized. We should be united.
And if you want more: consider who has the most abortions: the poor who cannot afford children because they have no jobs and no health care.
Unite
17/01/11 11:42
On the day before he died, Martin Luther King jr. said
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.”
I could stop there and let MLK’s words stand for themselves. I think, however, we can reflect on them even more. He is, of course, talking in part about racism. Racism divides person from person almost more than anything. King, however, was talking about more than racism. He was also talking about class. King worked for Civil Rights, but he also worked for economic justice and an end of war. And, of course, class dissolves human unity quite easily. Marx saw this: he wanted class conflict to be overcome. This point is often missed by the popes in their letters on Catholic Social Teaching. They write that communism divides people into classes and see a class warfare. That is not what Marx did. He saw the class warfare and said that the end of civilization would occur through overcoming class warfare.
This message is a Christian message, and it is a good one to reflect on as we celebrate the memory of MLK jr. and celebrate civil rights in our country. For more continues to divide us today.
We still suffer racism: just ask the African-American who does not get an interview because of his name or the Native American who cannot live on his traditional hunting grounds because the US government has not closed the uranium mines.
We suffer classicism: just ask the out of work woman who reads about the plutocrats who are raking in millions, even billions, while the rest of us stagnate.
We suffer sexism: ask the woman who is afraid to go to the police about her husband’s abuse.
We suffer religious discrimination: ask the Muslim whose mosque was threatened.
We suffer, most of all, political division: ask Christina Greene. Or ask Mitch McConnel who stated goal is the singular task of taking down Barack Obama.
Divisions prevent us from recognizing what we have in common as human persons. Divisions prevent us from recognizing a common good that we can pursue as a community of equals committed to each other’s welfare. Divisions prevent us from seeking economic justice for all for the liberty of a few.
We must seek unity if we are to move forward and find peace and a human life.
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.”
I could stop there and let MLK’s words stand for themselves. I think, however, we can reflect on them even more. He is, of course, talking in part about racism. Racism divides person from person almost more than anything. King, however, was talking about more than racism. He was also talking about class. King worked for Civil Rights, but he also worked for economic justice and an end of war. And, of course, class dissolves human unity quite easily. Marx saw this: he wanted class conflict to be overcome. This point is often missed by the popes in their letters on Catholic Social Teaching. They write that communism divides people into classes and see a class warfare. That is not what Marx did. He saw the class warfare and said that the end of civilization would occur through overcoming class warfare.
This message is a Christian message, and it is a good one to reflect on as we celebrate the memory of MLK jr. and celebrate civil rights in our country. For more continues to divide us today.
We still suffer racism: just ask the African-American who does not get an interview because of his name or the Native American who cannot live on his traditional hunting grounds because the US government has not closed the uranium mines.
We suffer classicism: just ask the out of work woman who reads about the plutocrats who are raking in millions, even billions, while the rest of us stagnate.
We suffer sexism: ask the woman who is afraid to go to the police about her husband’s abuse.
We suffer religious discrimination: ask the Muslim whose mosque was threatened.
We suffer, most of all, political division: ask Christina Greene. Or ask Mitch McConnel who stated goal is the singular task of taking down Barack Obama.
Divisions prevent us from recognizing what we have in common as human persons. Divisions prevent us from recognizing a common good that we can pursue as a community of equals committed to each other’s welfare. Divisions prevent us from seeking economic justice for all for the liberty of a few.
We must seek unity if we are to move forward and find peace and a human life.
How Capitalism Works
13/01/11 12:33
“It is the essence of capitalism that it makes the worker, and what happens to the worker as a result of the system, occur as a result of large scale forces, large-scale working of the system, which immediate action in the immediate environment cannot touch.” Alasdair MacIntyre, 1962
I’ve spoken to friends and family, and even strangers in the coffee shop, and they’ve told me how the system has given them a lower wage, or how the system means that jobs get lost, etc. It’s always the system. And, of course, if it is the system, then there’s nothing we can do about it. The system is something out there. Certainly it is not under my control, and most likely it’s not under anyone’s control. It operates independently of human free will.
This holds true, not only for capitalism, but for politics too, which, in the United States and most western “democracies” is only the slave of capitalism. When Ross Perot ran for president of the US back in 1992, I talked to a lot of people who told me the same story: “I’d vote for Ross Perot if I thought he could win.” But, of course, he can’t win because he’s not part of the system. We have a two-party system, and Ross Perot is outside the system. And we have no control over the system.
This is failed politics; it’s failed human nature; and it’s failed sociology.
Capitalism is a human institution, which means that it is subject to human will. Politics is a human institution, which means it is subject to human will.
The question for us is whether we shall allow ourselves to be human.
I’ve spoken to friends and family, and even strangers in the coffee shop, and they’ve told me how the system has given them a lower wage, or how the system means that jobs get lost, etc. It’s always the system. And, of course, if it is the system, then there’s nothing we can do about it. The system is something out there. Certainly it is not under my control, and most likely it’s not under anyone’s control. It operates independently of human free will.
This holds true, not only for capitalism, but for politics too, which, in the United States and most western “democracies” is only the slave of capitalism. When Ross Perot ran for president of the US back in 1992, I talked to a lot of people who told me the same story: “I’d vote for Ross Perot if I thought he could win.” But, of course, he can’t win because he’s not part of the system. We have a two-party system, and Ross Perot is outside the system. And we have no control over the system.
This is failed politics; it’s failed human nature; and it’s failed sociology.
Capitalism is a human institution, which means that it is subject to human will. Politics is a human institution, which means it is subject to human will.
The question for us is whether we shall allow ourselves to be human.
True Failure of Capitalism
21/12/10 11:51
“The essential failure of capitalism is that the kind of society which capitalism creates is one that can never fully employ the skills of hand and brain and eye, the exercise of which is part of man’s true being” (Alasdair MacIntyre’s Engagement with Marxism, p. 6)
I’m thinking about this quote on several levels. Today, I will focus on the issue of the essential failure of capitalism.
The claim MacIntyre makes here is a claim about the moral failure of capitalism. The inability to employ those things which are part of our true being constitutes a moral issue in the fullest sense. So MacIntyre steps away from the Marxist analysis of capitalism as simply a poor step in the progress of history to the full freedom humanity will find at the end of history. Rather, he is pointing out that capitalism does not simply fail as a failed moment of history or as a moment of history that another stage will supercede.
We should look at this claim carefully at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. We should look at this claim carefully as capitalism has triumphed recently in America with the move toward a more corporate-friendly policy in Washington and across the world. We should look at this claim carefully as we stare out into the world looking for an alternative economic system.
We should look at this claim carefully as we celebrate the Christmas season -- the season of giving and of love.
I call to mind the third-fourth century saint, Nicholas of Myra, who was born of a wealthy family, but used his wealth to help others. Consider that famous story of how he three three bags of gold coins into the window of a man who could not marry off his daughters. That story embodies the truth MacIntyre points at: prostitution comprises a system in which the individuals involved cannot employ those things that make us most human. We can argue about whether marriage, especially arranged marriages at the end of the classic period, allowed such fruition for women. The point, however, is that Christian love and humanism require us to use our goods to support the flourishing, not only of ourselves -- which is centrally important -- but of those in our community who are most in need.
Capitalism can never allow that, mainly because capitalism cannot allow humanity to flourish. Oh, individuals can flourish, but a truly good city is one in which each member flourishes.
I’m thinking about this quote on several levels. Today, I will focus on the issue of the essential failure of capitalism.
The claim MacIntyre makes here is a claim about the moral failure of capitalism. The inability to employ those things which are part of our true being constitutes a moral issue in the fullest sense. So MacIntyre steps away from the Marxist analysis of capitalism as simply a poor step in the progress of history to the full freedom humanity will find at the end of history. Rather, he is pointing out that capitalism does not simply fail as a failed moment of history or as a moment of history that another stage will supercede.
We should look at this claim carefully at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. We should look at this claim carefully as capitalism has triumphed recently in America with the move toward a more corporate-friendly policy in Washington and across the world. We should look at this claim carefully as we stare out into the world looking for an alternative economic system.
We should look at this claim carefully as we celebrate the Christmas season -- the season of giving and of love.
I call to mind the third-fourth century saint, Nicholas of Myra, who was born of a wealthy family, but used his wealth to help others. Consider that famous story of how he three three bags of gold coins into the window of a man who could not marry off his daughters. That story embodies the truth MacIntyre points at: prostitution comprises a system in which the individuals involved cannot employ those things that make us most human. We can argue about whether marriage, especially arranged marriages at the end of the classic period, allowed such fruition for women. The point, however, is that Christian love and humanism require us to use our goods to support the flourishing, not only of ourselves -- which is centrally important -- but of those in our community who are most in need.
Capitalism can never allow that, mainly because capitalism cannot allow humanity to flourish. Oh, individuals can flourish, but a truly good city is one in which each member flourishes.
War and Spending
19/12/10 12:08
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/17/house-overwhelmingly-approves-new-725-billion-military-spending-bill/
In more government news, congress passed the largest military budget in history, totaling $725 billion!
The hubris in passing such a bill with such a large majority of congress voting for it calls to mind the saying that “a government’s budget is an ethical statement because it shows the priorities.” How many of these people voted for tax breaks for the rich and threatened to withhold voting to extend unemployment benefits?
How can we justify this expenditure when we are cutting the social security tax by 2%? The military faces no threat of being underfunded whereas we know that social security will run out of funds by 2047 or before.
Much more can be said about this bill, but I think it is enough to keep in mind that this is the Christmas season -- the season of peace -- and that we clearly know the priorities of the US government.
Which means we know the priorities of the citizens of the United States.
In more government news, congress passed the largest military budget in history, totaling $725 billion!
The hubris in passing such a bill with such a large majority of congress voting for it calls to mind the saying that “a government’s budget is an ethical statement because it shows the priorities.” How many of these people voted for tax breaks for the rich and threatened to withhold voting to extend unemployment benefits?
How can we justify this expenditure when we are cutting the social security tax by 2%? The military faces no threat of being underfunded whereas we know that social security will run out of funds by 2047 or before.
Much more can be said about this bill, but I think it is enough to keep in mind that this is the Christmas season -- the season of peace -- and that we clearly know the priorities of the US government.
Which means we know the priorities of the citizens of the United States.
Sunday 5 December 2010
05/12/10 12:12
For any one, Catholic or otherwise, who thinks social justice is not as important as the well known hot-button issues, the first reading from Sunday 5 December 2010 might be kept in mind. It is Isaiah 11: 1-10
1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.
St. Nicholas, Tax Cuts, and Unemployment Benefits
03/12/10 16:32
Reports today make note of the fact that the US Congress has passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class but not the upper class and, further, that such a bill has no chance to pass in the US Senate. The Senate and Republicans will most likely force an extension of tax cuts for everyone because, on their arguments, we should not raise taxes in a recession or economic down turn.
As we reflect this weekend on the upcoming celebration of St. Nicholas of Myra who gave to the poor, who is the patron saint of prostitutes, thieves, merchants, and children, it’s good to reflect how his own life gave perspective to the poor here. His most famous work, of course, is saving the three daughters of a poor man from prostitution by secretly giving a dowry for each. Here, we have the example of how a Christian would take out of his largesse to help the poor.
While it might be true that raising taxes during a recession is detrimental to the economy, we have to put this rule of thumb in perspective. First, much of our current economic recession results, in part, from government transferring large amounts of money from the poor to the rich, especially through tax cuts. Second, we have to realize that local, state, and national revenues are far short of what they need to be to help the marginalized, the unemployed, the children, and working poor of our country. An increase to modest levels of taxation on those making more than $250k per annum will not worsen the economy and will help governments respond to those in need, especially the unemployed and children. Children are especially vulnerable. The rich will continue to be able to send their children to private schools if their taxes are increased, whereas the poor will have even more cuts to their current school services without more revenues coming in.
At a political level, the inability of the democrats to have passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits and to extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class is a failure of nerve, a failure of principle, and a clear inadequacy to do what government has a clear responsibility for: taking care that all of its citizens have an opportunity for integral development.
Let us spend this weekend praying to St. Nicholas for the poor, the marginalized, the women who will have to turn to prostitution to feed their families, the children who will suffer from inadequate education, and for merchants -- but those who provided honest work at living wages to all and those who see only the bottom line.
As we reflect this weekend on the upcoming celebration of St. Nicholas of Myra who gave to the poor, who is the patron saint of prostitutes, thieves, merchants, and children, it’s good to reflect how his own life gave perspective to the poor here. His most famous work, of course, is saving the three daughters of a poor man from prostitution by secretly giving a dowry for each. Here, we have the example of how a Christian would take out of his largesse to help the poor.
While it might be true that raising taxes during a recession is detrimental to the economy, we have to put this rule of thumb in perspective. First, much of our current economic recession results, in part, from government transferring large amounts of money from the poor to the rich, especially through tax cuts. Second, we have to realize that local, state, and national revenues are far short of what they need to be to help the marginalized, the unemployed, the children, and working poor of our country. An increase to modest levels of taxation on those making more than $250k per annum will not worsen the economy and will help governments respond to those in need, especially the unemployed and children. Children are especially vulnerable. The rich will continue to be able to send their children to private schools if their taxes are increased, whereas the poor will have even more cuts to their current school services without more revenues coming in.
At a political level, the inability of the democrats to have passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits and to extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class is a failure of nerve, a failure of principle, and a clear inadequacy to do what government has a clear responsibility for: taking care that all of its citizens have an opportunity for integral development.
Let us spend this weekend praying to St. Nicholas for the poor, the marginalized, the women who will have to turn to prostitution to feed their families, the children who will suffer from inadequate education, and for merchants -- but those who provided honest work at living wages to all and those who see only the bottom line.
Charity in Truth 3: Economic Participation
27/03/10 14:39
"Goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy. From the economic point of view, this meant their active participation on equal terms in economic process” From Caritas in Veritate
One of the best elements of Benedict XVI's encyclical is its reminder that we are in charge of the economic process. We don't act or talk this way much of the time. But in fact, if we don't consume -- if we don't shop, or bank, or work and put money into the economic system -- then the economic system does not work.
What Benedict is calling us to do is to remember that we are responsible for participating in the economic system. We need, however, a state to protect our actice participation in this process, a participation that must be equal. An economic system that denies some participants participation or gives to some greater power or voice than others violates our human dignity.
Not only that, but it undermines the economic system. Why would we say that government works better through democracy but deny the same fact about the economy? A progressive and satisfying economic system is one in which each and every human beings can participate as equals.
Let's support those institutions which promote such equal participation, whether they be co-ops or credit unions or other forms of local economies.
One of the best elements of Benedict XVI's encyclical is its reminder that we are in charge of the economic process. We don't act or talk this way much of the time. But in fact, if we don't consume -- if we don't shop, or bank, or work and put money into the economic system -- then the economic system does not work.
What Benedict is calling us to do is to remember that we are responsible for participating in the economic system. We need, however, a state to protect our actice participation in this process, a participation that must be equal. An economic system that denies some participants participation or gives to some greater power or voice than others violates our human dignity.
Not only that, but it undermines the economic system. Why would we say that government works better through democracy but deny the same fact about the economy? A progressive and satisfying economic system is one in which each and every human beings can participate as equals.
Let's support those institutions which promote such equal participation, whether they be co-ops or credit unions or other forms of local economies.
Charity in Truth 2: Economy
20/03/10 11:27
In his latest social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI asserts that love in truth must be the foundation of the economy. He holds that human beings are gifts, and, as such, mutual trust must be the foundation of economic transactions. Charity -- love -- is desiring the good of the other. That desiring of the good for others must be part of the economic system. Thus, gratuitiousness is the FOUNDATION of justice not something over and above justice.
This is a powerful vision, a prophetic call on what the economy can be. It is not something that can be acheived by laissez faire capitalism or state socialism. It means a fundamental reorganization of the economy.
But how do we everyday citizens engage in such a reorganization?
One thing that Benedict XVI recommends is co-ops. Get involved in a co-operative grocery that has purchsing power thought the collective bargaining of its members. For those of us living in the Willamette Valley, one such co-op is Life Sources in Salem. But there are many around. The idea here is simple: we exercise our rationality and will by coming together as a collective based on charity and mutual trust to determine a common good and pursue it on the market. This common good is something above and more important than mere profit, which is an individual pursuit. Profit does not rely on trust; in fact, it's built on mistrust. The recent economic crisis which depended, in part, on banks taking out insurance policies that someone would efault on a loan is an example of what concern for profit can do. The gift of Bob Red Mill's foods to its employees is an example of what charity can accomplish.
We reorganize the economy by rejecting the big business model that looks at profit over people and embrace local ecnomies. Shop at your local farmers market or your locally owned grocery store (IGA), Grow some of your own food to control your economy. Eat at local eateries rather than chain restaurants. Choose a local bank or credit union over national and international banks who profitted from the government bailouts.
And place charity above justice, for there is no justice without charity.
This is a powerful vision, a prophetic call on what the economy can be. It is not something that can be acheived by laissez faire capitalism or state socialism. It means a fundamental reorganization of the economy.
But how do we everyday citizens engage in such a reorganization?
One thing that Benedict XVI recommends is co-ops. Get involved in a co-operative grocery that has purchsing power thought the collective bargaining of its members. For those of us living in the Willamette Valley, one such co-op is Life Sources in Salem. But there are many around. The idea here is simple: we exercise our rationality and will by coming together as a collective based on charity and mutual trust to determine a common good and pursue it on the market. This common good is something above and more important than mere profit, which is an individual pursuit. Profit does not rely on trust; in fact, it's built on mistrust. The recent economic crisis which depended, in part, on banks taking out insurance policies that someone would efault on a loan is an example of what concern for profit can do. The gift of Bob Red Mill's foods to its employees is an example of what charity can accomplish.
We reorganize the economy by rejecting the big business model that looks at profit over people and embrace local ecnomies. Shop at your local farmers market or your locally owned grocery store (IGA), Grow some of your own food to control your economy. Eat at local eateries rather than chain restaurants. Choose a local bank or credit union over national and international banks who profitted from the government bailouts.
And place charity above justice, for there is no justice without charity.
Charity in Truth 1: Integral Human Development
18/03/10 21:33
"Integral human development implies the advance towards the true good of every individual, community and society, in every single dimension of human life: social, economic, political, intellectual, spiritual and religious."
This vision of human society is a PROGRESSIVE vision. It's a vision based in the Gospels, in the Christian tradition, and in the natural law tradition stemming from St. Thomas Aquinas. It calls for the flourishing of human beings -- each and every one -- in all dimensions.
Benedict XVI defends and elaborates on this vision in his encyclical Charity in Truth. I originally approached this encyclical with skepticism. But it paints a truly impressive picture of what human society can be. The notion of integral human development recalls the best of Aristotle and the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt quoted by J. S. Mill: the purpose of society is the fullest development of the human person for every one.
This vision of human society is a PROGRESSIVE vision. It's a vision based in the Gospels, in the Christian tradition, and in the natural law tradition stemming from St. Thomas Aquinas. It calls for the flourishing of human beings -- each and every one -- in all dimensions.
Benedict XVI defends and elaborates on this vision in his encyclical Charity in Truth. I originally approached this encyclical with skepticism. But it paints a truly impressive picture of what human society can be. The notion of integral human development recalls the best of Aristotle and the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt quoted by J. S. Mill: the purpose of society is the fullest development of the human person for every one.
Denver Child Refused Catholic Schooling
11/03/10 10:33
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/denver_archbishop_explains_why_lesbian_couples_child_not_admitted_to_school/
The above is one of many stories about the decision of a Catholic elementary school in Denver to deny admittance to a child who has lesbian parents because her parents are lesbian. Let's say we agree with certain things, even if we don't: that lesbianism is wrong according to Catholic teaching, that the school has a responsibility to uphold certain Catholic moral standards, that the archbishop has a prophetic duty to witness to Catholic teaching, that the lesbian couple involved promoted their lesbianism to challenge the school's policy.
Does that mean that we punishb the child because her parents are lesbian?
I would think that charity-- love -- insists that we do not. What is the effect on the child from this decision: a lack of education in a Catholic faith, a lack of quality education provided by a Catholic school, removal from friends she's already met at the school, disruption of her life. Both the lesbian parents and the archbishop are responsible for putting the child in this situation.
And one must wonder whether the school expels the children of other Catholics who engage in practices that do not accord with Catholic teaching: what about divorced and remarried couples (without an annulment)? What about lawyers who defend criminals they know are guilty? What about people who support the death penalty or who are pro-choice?
All the archbishop has done here is make a bad situation worse. Perhaps if we cared more about individuals and less about dogma and doctrine, we might have more converts. Perhaps we should remember what Jesus said of the pharisees: white-washed tombs.
The above is one of many stories about the decision of a Catholic elementary school in Denver to deny admittance to a child who has lesbian parents because her parents are lesbian. Let's say we agree with certain things, even if we don't: that lesbianism is wrong according to Catholic teaching, that the school has a responsibility to uphold certain Catholic moral standards, that the archbishop has a prophetic duty to witness to Catholic teaching, that the lesbian couple involved promoted their lesbianism to challenge the school's policy.
Does that mean that we punishb the child because her parents are lesbian?
I would think that charity-- love -- insists that we do not. What is the effect on the child from this decision: a lack of education in a Catholic faith, a lack of quality education provided by a Catholic school, removal from friends she's already met at the school, disruption of her life. Both the lesbian parents and the archbishop are responsible for putting the child in this situation.
And one must wonder whether the school expels the children of other Catholics who engage in practices that do not accord with Catholic teaching: what about divorced and remarried couples (without an annulment)? What about lawyers who defend criminals they know are guilty? What about people who support the death penalty or who are pro-choice?
All the archbishop has done here is make a bad situation worse. Perhaps if we cared more about individuals and less about dogma and doctrine, we might have more converts. Perhaps we should remember what Jesus said of the pharisees: white-washed tombs.
Unemployment as Social Sin
15/12/09 08:48
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
Obama at Notre Dame -- OMG
13/04/09 12:55
A response to a NY Times article opposing Obama at Notre Dame. Read More...
Rolling back Bush Directive on Abortion -- NOT
27/02/09 21:43
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.
Obama's Address to Congress
25/02/09 17:04
Well, it's interesting that Obama's address was at the end of Mardi Gras, for what Obama did was call an end to the party days that this country has been caught up in. But it's also true that Obama calls us to spend -- and to spend on things that will make us better -- education, health care, and energy. So it was surprising to see how many Republicans remained seated how many times during the speech.
Just as with any lenten sacrifice, we cannot sacrifice those things necessary for life. Similarly, the government cannot ask the people to sacrifice what will make this nation stronger. Education will make this nation stronger, especially if we meet Obama's goal for college graduates in 2020. We will have a better citizenry and people able to offer more to the world with creativity and knowledge. Of course, big business and big government would oppose this. Education means people won't be as susceptible to the lies of big business and the propaganda that the Republican party has spouted since Reagan about business watching themselves.
Better health care will make us stronger. How can we continue to pour billions into a system that does not work and pretend that it is better than everywhere else. We have the highest infant mortality of anyindustrialized nation. Why aren't the pro-lifers concerned about that?! Doctors are deprived of their autonomy because the insurers determine what treatments are allowed. This can no longer continue. A better health care system means a better America.
Finally, we have the opportunity to become the leaders in alternative renewable energy sources. Why are we so far behind everyone? Because of big oil and big auto. Clean energy is the road to more jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Clean energy is the means to saving our planet. Nothing else matters if we don't embrace solar cells and wind turbines.
So spend -- but spen wisely, and cut wisely. Obama has a vision, and his big plan is, not only workable, but necessary.
Just as with any lenten sacrifice, we cannot sacrifice those things necessary for life. Similarly, the government cannot ask the people to sacrifice what will make this nation stronger. Education will make this nation stronger, especially if we meet Obama's goal for college graduates in 2020. We will have a better citizenry and people able to offer more to the world with creativity and knowledge. Of course, big business and big government would oppose this. Education means people won't be as susceptible to the lies of big business and the propaganda that the Republican party has spouted since Reagan about business watching themselves.
Better health care will make us stronger. How can we continue to pour billions into a system that does not work and pretend that it is better than everywhere else. We have the highest infant mortality of anyindustrialized nation. Why aren't the pro-lifers concerned about that?! Doctors are deprived of their autonomy because the insurers determine what treatments are allowed. This can no longer continue. A better health care system means a better America.
Finally, we have the opportunity to become the leaders in alternative renewable energy sources. Why are we so far behind everyone? Because of big oil and big auto. Clean energy is the road to more jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Clean energy is the means to saving our planet. Nothing else matters if we don't embrace solar cells and wind turbines.
So spend -- but spen wisely, and cut wisely. Obama has a vision, and his big plan is, not only workable, but necessary.
Obama's Address on Lincoln
14/02/09 12:11
Discussion of Obama's address on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. Read More...