A jaundiced look at the world we live in.
The brazen David Barton strikes again.
If we did even a reasonable job of civics education in this country, people like Barton would be objects of laughter–as they so richly deserve.
That said, this latest bit of historical revisionism is so self-evidently ridiculous, the only people who would fall for it would be those who really want to believe…
CommentsThere’s an old joke about the golfers who were on the 12th hole when one of their foursome suddenly died. One of the survivors was recounting the experience later to a friend who said sympathetically, “that must have been terrible.” “It was,” replied the golfer. “For the next six holes, it was awful–play a hole, drag Charlie, play a hole, drag Charlie…”
My husband and I are in Williamsburg, Virginia, with our two youngest grandchildren. We’re seeing the historical sites here, then going to Washington, D.C., where we’ll tour the White House and Capitol (thanks to Congressman Carson’s office!), and see still more history. Those of you who read this blog regularly will understand when I say that one of my goals is to ensure that my own grandchildren, at least, know there are three branches of government.
We aren’t as young as we used to be, however, and Grandpa has been limping. Hence the reference to Charlie and his foursome. We see a site, drag Grandpa…
Today, we took the grandkids to a short film about the days/events leading up to the American Revolution. I don’t know how much of the story line they really understood, but my ten-year-old grandson picked up on the slaves who were among the show’s background elements, and asked a question: How could people ever believe it was okay to own other people?
A pretty good question.
As I told him, sometimes we fail to see that things we take for granted are wrong. Sometimes, we’ve done something wrong for so long, we no longer question it. That’s why it is so important to think about the everyday things we do, to consider whether they are right or wrong.
When I get discouraged, I look at my grandchildren. Their friends are multi-colored and multi-cultural. Their friends’ parents are gay and straight, married and single. The children see people as nice or not nice–not as representatives of this or that (artificial) category of human.
And they can’t imagine thinking it was ever okay to own other people.
I think it’s been worth dragging Grandpa.
CommentsA recent decision by the Illinois Attorney General has thrown me into one of those “On this hand…but on the other hand..” internal conflicts.
The Attorney General and another Illinois prosecutor have announced that they will not defend that state’s ban on same-sex marriage against a challenge being brought by couples whose application for marriage licenses were denied. Their reasoning was that they believe the ban to be unconstitutional under the equal protection clauses of both the state and federal constitutions.
I agree with that conclusion, but that doesn’t resolve the conflict.
The duty of an Attorney General is to defend the laws of his jurisdiction. It’s the duty of the judiciary to decide whether those laws are proper. Separation of powers is one of the most fundamental elements of American government, and our courts depend on the adversarial system to sharpen clarify the questions presented. And even criminals and legislators (whose ranks are not always as distinguishable as we might wish) deserve representation. It is the job of Attorneys General to defend laws whether they personally believe those laws are fair or prudent.
On the other hand, criminal prosecutors who proceed with cases against people they know to be innocent violate their oaths of office, and their duty to justice, and we rightly condemn them. They aren’t duty bound to prosecute everyone initially charged with a crime; we expect them to apply their best judgment and to proceed only when there is a substantial likelihood of guilt.
Our elected officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. When they are convinced that a particular enactment cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, must they spend time and resources defending it? What is the weight of evidence required before such a decision is appropriate?
There are also questions of credibility: wouldn’t the people of Illinois be more likely to accept a decision by a court than one by the state’s chief lawyer?
I agree with the Illinois AG about the ban’s unconstitutionality. I’m not entirely sure I agree with her decision to forgo its defense.
CommentsThere was another item in the news this morning about Congressional Republicans’ efforts to “trim” food stamps. The stated reason is to reduce government expenditures without raising taxes.
My husband noted that calling something a “reduction in benefits” doesn’t change the fact that the target of the measure has less money to spend at the grocery. Substantively, the food stamp recipient has been taxed.
This willingness to “reduce benefits” to avoid calling something a tax raises an inconvenient question. Oil companies–which have been massively profitable of late–enjoy generous federal subsidies. If the GOP doesn’t want to tax those they have labeled “job creators,” why not simply reduce their benefits?
Evidently, in the reality occupied by these Congressmen, reducing corporate welfare for big oil is a “tax” to be avoided at all costs, but reducing social welfare for poor children is just budgetary prudence.
I guess it all depends on what your definition of a “tax” is.
CommentsSometimes, the Letters to the Editor are just jaw-dropping excursions into the depths of illogic. This morning’s entrant into the “it ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you know that just ain’t so” sweepstakes is a prime example.
The writer says there is no “war on women,” rather, it is a war for “immorality, secularism and the destruction of Christianity.” And what is the weapon being deployed in this war? The requirement that health insurance include coverage for birth control.
Where to begin?
Perhaps we might question the writer’s assumption that use of birth control equates to “immorality.” (“Procreation is a gift from God. It is not a form of recreation.”) Evidently, only participants in “recreational” sex use birth control. We probably should tell that to the doctors who prescribe contraceptives to treat a variety of medical conditions, including but not limited to menorrhagia.
We might also note that the writer’s defense of this position by Catholics who believe in the “sanctity of life” conveniently ignores the lack of Church outrage over the use of its tax dollars to fund capital punishment and war.
Finally, we might gently note that the First Amendment religion clauses are not violated when taxes paid by “Christians and people of faith” are spent for purposes of which they disapprove. If that were the case, every dollar spent on war and weaponry would violate the religious liberty of Quakers. Money spent to enforce “blue laws” would violate the rights of Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. Taxes supporting high schools would violate the religious liberty of the Amish. In a religiously diverse nation, there are hundreds of other examples.
Religious liberty does not mean government must impose your religious beliefs on your neighbors. Catholics, who not so long ago struggled against state imposition of Protestant norms, should be particularly sensitive to that bit of legal revisionism.
That, of course, would require the use of logic.
Comments