Category Archives: Random Blogging

In the wake of what he conceeded was “a thumping,” President Bush promised a renewed emphasis on bipartisanship, and a good-faith effort to work across the aisle with the new Democratic majority.

 

Activists on both sides of that aisle remain skeptical. The former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, now Dean of Yale Law School, spoke at a conference held just a few days after the midterm elections. Asked about the odds of bipartisanship during the remainder of Bush’s presidency, he quoted the psychiatrist who was asked to change a light bulb: “First, the light bulb really has to want to change.”    

 

If Bush’s actions in the week following the election are any indication, change is a distant goal. First, the President sent John Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. Ambassador back to the Senate, where he had to know it would be dead on arrival. Bolton—named by Bush in a recess appointment after it became clear that he could not be confirmed even by a Senate dominated by Republicans—is widely considered an unmitigated disaster at a time when effective American diplomacy is an urgent imperative.

 

If the Bolton renomination wasn’t “in your face” enough, the President followed up by renominating a group of hard-Right judges who had previously failed to win confirmation for the federal bench.

 

For sheer chutzpah, however, nothing surpasses Bush’s appointment of Eric Keroack to head up family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. In his new capacity, according to HHS, he will oversee $283 million dollars in annual family-planning grants “designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them, with priority given to low-income persons.”

 

Dr. Keroack previously worked at a Christian “Crisis Pregnancy” clinic that forbid its employees from referring patients to birth control providers. He has been widely quoted as saying that the distribution of contraceptives “demeans women” and “increases out-of-wedlock pregnancy.” He opposes not just abortion, but also birth control and sex education.

 

If individuals believe that birth control is immoral, that is their prerogative. Putting an implacable foe of family planning in charge of the United States government’s family planning programs is another matter entirely.

 

As many abortion opponents have noted, the most effective way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Even if abstinence-based sex education programs were effective—and a multitude of studies suggests otherwise—they are manifestly inappropriate for married couples who want to plan their families. Rigid proponents of  abstinence-based procreation doctrines are equally inappropriate choices to run government family planning offices.  

 

The moral and religious beliefs of Americans are incredibly diverse. The genius of our constitutional system is that by keeping government out of arguments about religious doctrine and observance—by confining government to matters that require communal action—we have largely averted the sectarian disputes that have torn other nations apart. We have made bipartisanship and cooperation possible.

 

But first, we have to want to cooperate.   

Comments

    In the wake of what he conceeded was “a thumping,” President Bush promised a renewed emphasis on bipartisanship, and a good-faith effort to work across the aisle with the new Democratic majority. 

 

    Activists on both sides of that aisle remain skeptical. The former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, now Dean of Yale Law School, spoke at a conference held just a few days after the midterm elections. Asked about the odds of bipartisanship during the remainder of Bush’s presidency, he quoted the psychiatrist who was asked to change a light bulb: “First, the light bulb really has to want to change.”    

    If Bush’s actions in the week following the election are any indication, change is a distant goal. First, the President sent John Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. Ambassador back to the Senate, where he had to know it would be dead on arrival. Bolton—named by Bush in a recess appointment after it became clear that he could not be confirmed even by a Senate dominated by Republicans—is widely considered an unmitigated disaster at a time when effective American diplomacy is an urgent imperative.

    If the Bolton renomination wasn’t “in your face” enough, the President followed up by renominating a group of hard-Right judges who had previously failed to win confirmation for the federal bench.

    For sheer chutzpah, however, nothing surpasses Bush’s appointment of Eric Keroack to head up family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. In his new capacity, according to HHS, he will oversee $283 million dollars in annual family-planning grants “designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them, with priority given to low-income persons.”

   

Dr. Keroack previously worked at a Christian “Crisis Pregnancy” clinic that forbid its employees from referring patients to birth control providers. He has been widely quoted as saying that the distribution of contraceptives “demeans women” and “increases out-of-wedlock pregnancy.” He opposes not just abortion, but also birth control and sex education.

    

If individuals believe that birth control is immoral, that is their prerogative. Putting an implacable foe of family planning in charge of the United States government’s family planning programs is another matter entirely.

    As many abortion opponents have noted, the most effective way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Even if abstinence-based sex education programs were effective—and a multitude of studies suggests otherwise—they are manifestly inappropriate for married couples who want to plan their families. Rigid proponents of  abstinence-based procreation doctrines are equally inappropriate choices to run government family planning offices.  

    The moral and religious beliefs of Americans are incredibly diverse. The genius of our constitutional system is that by keeping government out of arguments about religious doctrine and observance—by confining government to matters that require communal action—we have largely averted the sectarian disputes that have torn other nations apart. We have made bipartisanship and cooperation possible.

    But first, we have to want to cooperate.   

Comments

   Every year, I think the campaign ads can’t get any worse—and every year, the inventive souls who churn them out surprise me.

  

It’s bad enough that every vote is twisted to prove that the person who cast it is a deviant intent upon destroying America, and complex issues are portrayed as choices between good and evil so that they can be shoehorned into 30-second sound bites. Even worse—if that’s possible—is the choice of issues to highlight.

  

When the New Jersey Supreme Court, consisting of four Republicans and three Democrats, held unanimously that “denying commited same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose,” the joy and relief was palpable. Republicans were ecstatic. (Gays were generally pleased, too.) Nationally and locally, GOP candidates fell all over themselves proclaiming the centrality of the issue, and the mortal danger posed to the republic should we fail to amend the constitution to ensure that same sex couples will never, ever be able to file joint tax returns.

  

Presumably, voters will now recognize the triviality of such issues as the fiasco in Iraq, where nearly 3000 young Americans and perhaps 600,000 Iraqis have died. We will ignore the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. We will ignore the fact that we sent our troops into danger without proper equipment and without a viable military strategy or exit plan. (Okay, apparently without any strategy or exit plan.)

   Vo

ters will stop worrying about billions of dollars ripped off by Halliburton and other cronies of the Administration who received juicy no-bid contracts, both in Iraq and Louisiana. And we certainly will stop carping about the incompetence of the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. That was over a year ago, after all—the New Jersey threat is fresh and new, and voters have short memories.

  

Surely, voters will understand intuitively that the threat posed by committed gay couples is far greater than the threat posed by refusing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, or by the warrantless wiretapping and data mining of American citizens by our own government. How many times has the average citizen really needed the right of habeas corpus? What is worse, after all—letting the President decide who is an enemy combatant, and what constitutes torture, or the prospect that Adam and Steve might actually move into the house next door?

 

Maybe it will work one more time. Maybe those who are terrified of the social change

represented by acceptance of our gay neighbors will once again elevate the issue of gay marriage over and above all other considerations, and energize the Republican base. But maybe not. A recent Ipsos Public Affairs Survey commissioned by the AP asked likely voters who they trusted most to handle a series of issues. On same-sex marriage, 46% trusted Democrats; 36% trusted Republicans.

 

As the President says, “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again."

Comments

Here’s a short quiz.

 

    Who is the better parent, the dad who lovingly but firmly corrects his child when he believes the youngster has done something wrong and needs to learn a lesson, or the dad who reflexively defends Junior, no matter what—the one who goes to school and argues when the teacher disciplines his child?

    

Most of us would choose the parent who cares enough to teach his child to distinguish between right and wrong, between unacceptable behavior and behavior that is true to the child’s best nature. Most of us also recognize that the parent who constantly shields his children from the consequences of their bad choices is not living up to the responsibilities of parenthood.

    

Would we accuse the first parent of not loving his child? Or would we say his willingness to do the unpleasant work—the willingness to suffer through the tantrums of the two-year-old told no, the pouting of the preteen denied a pair of too-expensive jeans, and the complaints of a grounded teenager—makes him the better, more loving parent? One is  mature love; the other is a self-centered  "he’s my kid, so he’s automatically right" attitude that is anything but.

     

Think about this example the next time someone in the Bush Administration suggests that any criticism of the Iraq war or American foreign policy is “siding with the terrorists.” Think about it when shrill pundits accuse those who disagree with Administration policies of “hating America” or being “covert enemies” who secretly want the United States to fail.

    

Midterm elections are fast approaching, and the nasty rhetoric on all sides is ratcheting up accordingly. That’s a shame—because if there is anything America needs right now, it is an adult conversation about our policy priorities, and about the qualifications of those we elect to set those priorities and implement them. That conversation won’t occur if necessary participants in the debate take the position that disagreement equals hatred and shouldn’t be tolerated. 

 

    Mature people who genuinely love this country will worry when they believe it is going astray. They will do the hard work of citizenship: they will inform themselves of the facts and make an effort to help correct perceived missteps. They won’t always be right, any more than a parent is always right—but therein lies the difference between patriotism and jingoism.

    

Let’s set some ground rules. Let’s acknowledge that people can love their country deeply, and yet have very different ideas about what is in the national best interest. We can respect the good will of those with whom we disagree, and listen to their arguments, rather than applying labels in order to dismiss them. We may leave the conversation without reaching agreement—indeed, such a result is highly likely, given human nature and the different worldviews we bring to the discussion—but actually listening to each other can be a very enlightening experience.

 

     Good parents don’t condone name-calling when their children do it.  Good citizens don’t resort to it either.

 

 

Comments

I think I just took a poll.

 

It wasn’t scientific—in fact, it could more aptly be characterized as a series of anecdotes. But interesting, for what it may be worth, and what it may suggest about changing political passions in these polarized times.

 

As most of my friends and acquaintences know, I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads simply “Ex Republican.” It is the only message on my car, and something of a departure from my usual disinclination to use my transportation as a billboard for my politics, my religion or my philosophy. I put it there three years ago, and I tend to forget it’s there, but the last couple of weeks have provided me with pretty constant reminders.

 

For one week every summer for a number of years, my husband and I have taken assorted kids—and more recently, grandkids—to a beach in South Carolina. This year, he and I took an extra week and drove down the

Blue Ridge Parkway

. (For those who have never done so, I commend the experience; the National Park Service has done a magnificent job maintaining this spectacular route through the mountains. It would be nice if more of our federal budget went to such endeavors, and less to blowing people up in Iraq—but I digress.)

 

On a country road in Virginia, a woman driving a pickup truck honked at us and motioned for my husband to roll down his window. Mystified, he did so. She gave us a “thumbs up,” and when we still looked puzzled, yelled “I love your bumper sticker! Me too!”

 

When we stopped at a hotel, the bellman smiled broadly and told us he loved our bumper sticker. When we pulled over at one of the scenic overlooks along the

Blue Ridge Parkway

, a man driving out of the same overlook in a car with a faded Bush/Cheney sticker leaned out his window and told us he sure did agree with our bumper sticker. The most enthusiastic response came from the owner of an Inn in Blowing Rock, North Carolina; he took one look, started to laugh, and said “That bumper sticker just earned you a discount on your room!” He was as good as his word—we got 30% off the listed rate!

 

I must admit to being floored by these and a number of similar reactions. We were driving through the south, after all—through very red states. And we undoubtedly passed plenty of people who muttered uncomplimentary things under their breath, or at least disagreed with the sentiment plastered on our car. But I also don’t think these reactions were meaningless, or that they should be discounted. I think they reflect a growing national mood, made up of equal parts disgust with Congressional corruption, and the belated realization that a President who understands the importance of national parks and global realities (among other things) might be a better choice than one we’d like to have a beer with.

 

 

Comments