Who Are We?

Today is Sunday. And Father’s Day.

Believers who celebrate Sabbath on Sunday will go to church and hear exhortations about living a good and moral life.  Depending upon the denomination, the focus will be on love and compassion, charity and social justice.

In most families, Fathers will receive sentimental greeting cards from their children thanking them for their patience and love and support. Some will get sweaters or ties or sporting gear; others will have a family dinner.

These Norman Rockwell experiences make us feel good about ourselves. We’re good people, family people, caring citizens.

So here is my question: how many Americans will go to work tomorrow for an employer who has cut his or her hours in order to avoid paying for health insurance? If we are to believe the media reports, it’s not an insignificant number.

At Indiana University, where I teach, there’s a new rule that Graduate Assistants–already poorly paid–cannot work more than 29 hours a week, because then they would be eligible for health insurance. The Indianapolis Star recently reported that several Indiana school districts were planning to cut back hours for many staff positions, so that they could avoid insuring the people in those positions. Private employers, of course, have been engaging in such practices for years, in order to avoid compliance with a number of regulations that apply only when employees work a certain number of hours.

This response to an effort–however flawed–to extend basic health services to people who currently can’t afford those services tells us something about our culture. And what it tells us isn’t consistent with that Norman Rockwell version of ourselves.

Comments

Quick–More Lipstick!

As Mike Pence has doggedly pursued his “Look, Ma…I’m really a moderate!” remake, I’ve heard several people describe the effort with that old saying about putting lipstick on a pig.

Problem is, no matter how much Revlon you slather on that porker, it’s still a pig.

During a meeting attended by a variety of health agencies last week, when the subject of health outreach at Black Expo came up, attendees were told of a new directive issued by the Governor’s office. No agency receiving state funds may distribute condoms. That prohibition includes–but, as we lawyer-types like to say, is not limited to–Black Expo.

According to the Staff person delivering this news, this edict was justified by the fact that “only married people should have sex.” (And I guess they’ll have to buy their own condoms.) Evidently, no one in attendance suggested an obvious fix–that anyone receiving a condom be made to submit an affidavit to the effect that 1)he is married; and 2) he will use it only when having sex with his wife.

Pence is obviously unaware of a 1972 Supreme Court case (Eisenstadt v. Baird for my fellow nerds) directly on point. The Court said unmarried people have the same right to possess contraception as married ones. But then, our Governor is still insisting that Marbury v. Madison, the case that established judicial review, was wrongly decided.

Of course, Pence doesn’t look to the law for guidance anyway. He looks to his bible and like Micah Clark, he reads it literally.

Comments

Fortunately, Most Christians Aren’t Like Micah Clark

The Boy Scouts did (half of) the right thing a couple of weeks ago, and triggered another of Micah Clark’s (tiresome and predicitble) rants.

Some of his bizarre assertions: the Indianapolis Star is “one of the largest homosexual advocacy organizations.” The Boy Scouts “decided to abandon their moral principles in favor of keeping pro-homosexual corporate donors’ money.” The Greenwood Church that withdrew from sponsorship of a cub scout pack is “one of the finest churches in the Greenwood area.” Gays make up “only 3% of the US population but are responsible for a third of all child molestations.” The Scouts’ decision is yet more evidence that “true manhood is under attack.”

Needless to say, Clark plucks his “facts” from thin air–or perhaps from the same “researchers” who broke the news that Sponge Bob Squarepants is recruiting for the armies of homosexual activists that Clark sees everywhere. (Which does lead me to wonder how a mere 3% of the population can be everywhere Clark sees them…)

I would ignore this latest roar of wounded indignation, but a friend sent it to me not an hour after I had spoken to a sizable group of Christian senior citizens about same-sex marriage. The average age of the audience was probably 80+. They all belonged to Christian denominations. All but one of them was white. (The common stereotype of such older white Christians, of course, is that they are the bulk of the nation’s culture warriors.)

Since Micah clearly believes that he speaks for all “true” Christians, this gathering must have been composed of “fake” Christians. Not only did they reject the sort of hateful homophobic characterizations and falsehoods that Micah and his ilk constantly spew, not only did they applaud the Boy Scouts’ decision, they were strongly supportive of marriage equality.

In fact, these senior-citizen Christians must be Micah’s worst nightmare.

Micah Clark and those like him can turn blue insisting that neutral reporting turns the daily newspaper into an advocacy organization. They can excoriate “liberals” like yours truly, and dismiss our positions out of hand. They can invent statistics and “facts” and insist that theirs is the proper “moral” standard. But all of that is window dressing. Their position rests, ultimately, on their conviction that they speak for the angry God of their version of Christianity.

But just as they stereotype GLBT folks, they stereotype their fellow Christians.

For every literalist, fundamentalist church that defines itself in contrast to sinful “others,” there is a Christian denomination that takes seriously the obligation to love one’s fellow-man.

For every angry, judgmental, morally-constipated “Christian” I’ve met, I can point to three or four others who see their faith as a prescription for love and understanding and who shrink from the very real transgressions of arrogance and self-righteousness.

I am neither a Christian nor a theologian, but I know the difference between people who are at peace with themselves and people who–for whatever reason–need to blame someone else for the demons that beset them.

Comments

Political Party Values

I got an email telling me that the Indiana Republican Party is holding a fundraiser to which I am invited. The featured speaker will be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and whoever wrote the email clearly anticipated great excitement on the part of its recipients. Generally, when a political party highlights one of its own at such an event, it is because that person represents success as the party defines it.

So–how is Walker, who triggered some of the most acrimonious protests in Wisconsin history, performing?

Well, the latest data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia paints a rather grim picture for Wisconsin under Governor Walker.

Not only is Wisconsin one of only five states whose economy is expected to contract over the next six months, but it’s 49th out of 50. Only Wyoming is worse. The state ranks 44th in private sector job growth, and 5th worst in wage erosion.

For a governor who bragged about stealing Illinois’ jobs after their the state to Wisconsin’s south raised taxes, it must be embarrassing that Illinois is far outpacing it economically. In fact, Illinois is projected to be in the top 10 over the next six months.  (On the other hand, I have the impression that  Scott Walker rarely allows reality to embarrass him–or even make contact.)

Interestingly, every state with a projected economic contraction in the study is headed by a Republican, and every one of the bottom 10 is GOP governed.

Given this level of performance, one might be forgiven for wondering why Walker was chosen to headline the Indiana GOP dinner. Might it be that today’s Republicans value sticking it to unions and public employees more than they value actual economic growth?

Comments

Invisible Infrastructure

When we hear the word “infrastructure,” most of us think of highways, bridges, airports, water mains….the physical apparatus built and paid for with tax dollars. And that’s accurate–so far as it goes. But most of us fail to recognize both the extent of the “public goods” we support and how essential they are to private enterprise.

In a recent issue of PA Times, the publication of the American Society for Public Administration (yes, I am a nerd), a contributor forcefully made the point that citizens are generally uninformed about the public goods they enjoy, and especially oblivious about how dependent they are on those goods. This expansive infrastructure is the “ecosystem” that supports commerce and business activity as well as our quality of life.

Elements of that ecosystem include clean air, clean public water supplies, street lights, food and drug safety, 911 services, police and fire protection, sewers and wastewater treatment facilities, interstate highways, education, national defense, a currency system, weather forecasting, disaster relief, registration systems for property, births and deaths, libraries, basic research and development, jogging trails, public parks, insurance of bank deposits, air traffic control, airports….the list goes on and on.

There is another “infrastructure” that makes civilization possible–the intellectual contributions of those who have gone before us. Today’s science and technology build on the discoveries of scientists long dead. We learn (okay, mostly we fail to learn) from the histories that have been recorded. We learn from research into the nature of our environments, both physical and social, and into experiments that have succeeded and failed. Etc.

I suppose it’s human to minimize the immense debt we owe to those who have provided the assets upon which even the most “self-made” build. But candidly, I find the preening “look at what I did all by myself” folks pretty insufferable.

And I find those who are unwilling to support that infrastructure, unwilling to “pay their dues,” immoral.

Comments