James Cameron’s film about the “Tomb of Jesus” has caused an uproar among the “faithful.”
Christians who claim their faith is based on history, like J. Hankins of Bob Jones University, say even investigating a tomb that may contain the remains of Jesus is to “travel down a dangerous road.”
Weird. One would think those who put faith in historical accounts would welcome learning more through archeology, not deny it.
Of course, the usual players in various denominations deny without investigation any possibility that the tomb might contain the remains of Jesus, likening the tomb’s discovery by moviemaker Cameron to “The Da Vinci Code” and the Judas Gospel.
More Christians should learn of the richness of their faith, especially the early teachings in the century after Christ died, and the many gospels repressed at that time.
The version of Christianity that has come down to us is not the full meal. Read up on the Gnostic traditions. How our Bible came to be is a fascinating story in itself.
We don’t know if Cameron found the tomb of Jesus. We don’t know how anyone could ever be sure, since DNA testing is probably not an option. The whole discovery may be hype, a sales pitch, an exploitation. It would not be the first in the name of god, even by the “godly.”
But we disagree with those who say that this can not be, should not be, must not be, who have no excitement about the potential of the discovery.
We can even pity the Rev. Rob Schenk, president of the National Clergy Council, who said “The resurrection is at the core of the faith. It’s the bedrock of my understanding of Christianity,” he says. “Without it I’m left with an empty philosophy, which could be traded for any other philosophy.”
We submit that the Rev. Schenk’s faith is already empty, that he plants “trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner..." He is welcome to his beliefs, but there are others who also have rights to the claim of being “Christian.”
For many the power of Christ is not in the immaculate conception or the resurrection, it is in the power of great words heard past and present, warnings to the greedy, arrogant, and cruel, solace for the humble, for seekers of a better life and understanding.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Lies, damn lies, and politics
In a story in The Oregonian this morning, written by Don Colburn, there was nice exposure of lies greased into the public debate by Maribeth Healey, executive director of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Ms. Healey did acknowledge that her job includes helping "witnesses" in the debate on health care to develop their testimony.
One of those witnesses, Sarah Bacon of Medford, testified via speakerphone to lawmakers that her daughter Molly died for lack of health coverage, from a virus that would have been discovered if only Molly had had insurance.
Except Molly was living in Palm Desert California at the time. Except Molly probably died of bleeding in the brain caused by head trauma. A boyfriend was charged and acquitted.
In politics, it doesn't matter if we lie, if our cause is just. Thank you, Ms. Healey of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Ms. Healey did acknowledge that her job includes helping "witnesses" in the debate on health care to develop their testimony.
One of those witnesses, Sarah Bacon of Medford, testified via speakerphone to lawmakers that her daughter Molly died for lack of health coverage, from a virus that would have been discovered if only Molly had had insurance.
Except Molly was living in Palm Desert California at the time. Except Molly probably died of bleeding in the brain caused by head trauma. A boyfriend was charged and acquitted.
In politics, it doesn't matter if we lie, if our cause is just. Thank you, Ms. Healey of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Failure of leadership
If governance wasn't so important, the circus in Salem would be laughable. But it is, so it's not.
Democrats and Republicans could not agree yesterday on putting money aside for a "rainy day fund." This story in The Oregonian, by Betsy Hammond, explained that Republicans killed a bill that was supported by most of the major business groups in this state.
Follow the money, Betsy. Democrats say that Republican Wayne Scott of Canby tried to slide a capital gains tax break into the rainy day fund legislation. Now, Wayne Scott owns many millions of dollars of real estate. He is not one to be dealing impartially with these issues.
Scott says Democrats never talked to him. We'll let others decide who they believe on this one, but it is very odd that Republicans turned their back on legislation favored by most of the major business groups in this state.
What should have been a pretty straightforward operation of leadership and legislating will now go to the people as a ballot measure, there to face heavy anti-tax advertising paid for by Howard Rich out of New York.
Thank you, Oregon Legislature, for failing the people. If we are going to legislate by ballot measure, you can just go home. Leave your pay check, perks and honor at the door.
Democrats and Republicans could not agree yesterday on putting money aside for a "rainy day fund." This story in The Oregonian, by Betsy Hammond, explained that Republicans killed a bill that was supported by most of the major business groups in this state.
Follow the money, Betsy. Democrats say that Republican Wayne Scott of Canby tried to slide a capital gains tax break into the rainy day fund legislation. Now, Wayne Scott owns many millions of dollars of real estate. He is not one to be dealing impartially with these issues.
Scott says Democrats never talked to him. We'll let others decide who they believe on this one, but it is very odd that Republicans turned their back on legislation favored by most of the major business groups in this state.
What should have been a pretty straightforward operation of leadership and legislating will now go to the people as a ballot measure, there to face heavy anti-tax advertising paid for by Howard Rich out of New York.
Thank you, Oregon Legislature, for failing the people. If we are going to legislate by ballot measure, you can just go home. Leave your pay check, perks and honor at the door.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Housing, health care and the minimum wage
Now that Democrats are back in control of government in Oregon, we are seeing a resurgence of the “liberal agenda.” It’s too bad the right squandered their time in power on meaningless rhetoric about life, death and god that twisted their historical advocacy of liberty and responsibility.
Recent news reports describe efforts to create affordable housing, secure a “living” wage and provide health care.
We favor universal health care: it makes sense socially, economically, morally. Sen. Ben Westlund’s plan is the best, by far. It’s sustainable, it’s attainable. Kulongoski and Kitzhaber need to support it.
We do not feel the same about “living wage” and “affordable” housing. These are different from health care for many reasons, the primary one being an element of choice. We can agree, possibly even in strident times, that the woman down the street did not make a choice to get ovarian cancer, her son did not choose to break his leg.
Universal health care is just insurance, folks. We want our neighbors insured because we will be picking up the bill in any case. We don’t have the same incentive for their housing, or their wage.
As a janitor making the minimum wage, Elvira may have a problem with housing, or with her income. She may or may not be able to get a better job. But I am not paying that price with her. I am not making her choices for her. We may want to do a number of things for Elvira individually. Improve her education, help her with a job search, repair her car, maybe even get her a better place to live.
But passing misdirected laws for a higher wage for all janitors will not help the group of Elviras over the long run.
The trap here is a subtle change of scale, from looking at the problems of individuals, then crafting solutions for an entire “class.” Such laws will give all the Elviras a short shot of cash, good for them, bad for those who give them the cash, an income shift.
If consumers resist giving up their income, some Elviras will actually lose their jobs, replaced by new robotic floor polishers.
If consumers can not resist, they will use whatever power they have to charge Elvira more for the burgers or the tires she buys from them. That will eat the wage increase Elvira received.
Differences are good. They create the dynamic of society. Most of us don’t want the hard life of Elvira and will do what we can to avoid it. We will create value in our skill set, will try to learn a new job. Or we won’t, will sit watching reality TV and slurp a Big Gulp. We will make a choice.
The same is true about “affordable housing.” It is horrible to see the conditions some of our neighbors occupy. But the solution often lies with them, not society. To try to change that for all may have a short term benefit, but it often comes at a greater, hidden cost.
This is hard to see and hard to accept. It is difficult to believe that we can’t wave a wand and change the laws of economics, since those laws are concerned with human behavior and we like to believe that as humans, we can change our behavior. That is probably true on an individual scale.
But just as human behavior on the freeway can be described by the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of economics are really the laws of scarcity and change.
There are sub issues that need to be addressed: true homelessness, mental illness, worker safety. There is a role for government, which brings social values to the marketplace.
But the left needs to focus on what can be done, what really needs to be done, that which will truly improve the lot of the helpless. If government resources are limited, and they are, we need to focus on opportunity, not on safety nets.
Overreaching will earn the left just what it earned the religious right: failure and being pushed to the margins.
Recent news reports describe efforts to create affordable housing, secure a “living” wage and provide health care.
We favor universal health care: it makes sense socially, economically, morally. Sen. Ben Westlund’s plan is the best, by far. It’s sustainable, it’s attainable. Kulongoski and Kitzhaber need to support it.
We do not feel the same about “living wage” and “affordable” housing. These are different from health care for many reasons, the primary one being an element of choice. We can agree, possibly even in strident times, that the woman down the street did not make a choice to get ovarian cancer, her son did not choose to break his leg.
Universal health care is just insurance, folks. We want our neighbors insured because we will be picking up the bill in any case. We don’t have the same incentive for their housing, or their wage.
As a janitor making the minimum wage, Elvira may have a problem with housing, or with her income. She may or may not be able to get a better job. But I am not paying that price with her. I am not making her choices for her. We may want to do a number of things for Elvira individually. Improve her education, help her with a job search, repair her car, maybe even get her a better place to live.
But passing misdirected laws for a higher wage for all janitors will not help the group of Elviras over the long run.
The trap here is a subtle change of scale, from looking at the problems of individuals, then crafting solutions for an entire “class.” Such laws will give all the Elviras a short shot of cash, good for them, bad for those who give them the cash, an income shift.
If consumers resist giving up their income, some Elviras will actually lose their jobs, replaced by new robotic floor polishers.
If consumers can not resist, they will use whatever power they have to charge Elvira more for the burgers or the tires she buys from them. That will eat the wage increase Elvira received.
Differences are good. They create the dynamic of society. Most of us don’t want the hard life of Elvira and will do what we can to avoid it. We will create value in our skill set, will try to learn a new job. Or we won’t, will sit watching reality TV and slurp a Big Gulp. We will make a choice.
The same is true about “affordable housing.” It is horrible to see the conditions some of our neighbors occupy. But the solution often lies with them, not society. To try to change that for all may have a short term benefit, but it often comes at a greater, hidden cost.
This is hard to see and hard to accept. It is difficult to believe that we can’t wave a wand and change the laws of economics, since those laws are concerned with human behavior and we like to believe that as humans, we can change our behavior. That is probably true on an individual scale.
But just as human behavior on the freeway can be described by the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of economics are really the laws of scarcity and change.
There are sub issues that need to be addressed: true homelessness, mental illness, worker safety. There is a role for government, which brings social values to the marketplace.
But the left needs to focus on what can be done, what really needs to be done, that which will truly improve the lot of the helpless. If government resources are limited, and they are, we need to focus on opportunity, not on safety nets.
Overreaching will earn the left just what it earned the religious right: failure and being pushed to the margins.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Oregon sales to China
Great story in this morning’s Oregonian, by Richard Read, about the increase in sales from Oregon companies to China.
The story outlined a nearly perfect example of why free trade works, why the law of comparative advantage proves that trade benefits all trading partners, raises the standard of living in each trading center.
Closing borders or raising barriers to trade is bigoted and ignorant. Sales from Intel, Mentor Graphics and Williams Controls to Asia are nearly a textbook case of how trade benefits each region. China, Viet Nam, South Korea are now rich enough to buy our products. They got that rich by selling us their products, using their cheap labor to upgrade their economies, just like the U.S. did in the last century.
Some laws of economics are like Newton’s laws of motion, and we are far better off understanding and working within their constraints than following knee jerk rhetoric which says we need to protect workers in industries that need to move elsewhere.
The left will point to jobs lost. And though some would say this is the price of progress and refer to jobs lost in the typewriter industry, we are not so callous. There is a place for government, and we need to constantly improve education, provide safety nets and attempt to mitigate tragedy. Act like good neighbors through government action.
But that is not done by attempting to withstand the movement of trade, of computer controls to China or Chinese T-shirts to Wal -Mart. The growing middle class in Asia is a very good thing, trade makes war less likely, it improves lives in China and America, and is the future.
The ascendant left needs to embrace these changes, not resort to polemic of the 1940’s or worse, that which prededed 1929.
The story outlined a nearly perfect example of why free trade works, why the law of comparative advantage proves that trade benefits all trading partners, raises the standard of living in each trading center.
Closing borders or raising barriers to trade is bigoted and ignorant. Sales from Intel, Mentor Graphics and Williams Controls to Asia are nearly a textbook case of how trade benefits each region. China, Viet Nam, South Korea are now rich enough to buy our products. They got that rich by selling us their products, using their cheap labor to upgrade their economies, just like the U.S. did in the last century.
Some laws of economics are like Newton’s laws of motion, and we are far better off understanding and working within their constraints than following knee jerk rhetoric which says we need to protect workers in industries that need to move elsewhere.
The left will point to jobs lost. And though some would say this is the price of progress and refer to jobs lost in the typewriter industry, we are not so callous. There is a place for government, and we need to constantly improve education, provide safety nets and attempt to mitigate tragedy. Act like good neighbors through government action.
But that is not done by attempting to withstand the movement of trade, of computer controls to China or Chinese T-shirts to Wal -Mart. The growing middle class in Asia is a very good thing, trade makes war less likely, it improves lives in China and America, and is the future.
The ascendant left needs to embrace these changes, not resort to polemic of the 1940’s or worse, that which prededed 1929.
Friday, February 2, 2007
"Pastor" goes to jail
It took all day on Friday, February 2, 2007, for the jury to come back with a verdict in the trial of “pastor” Shane Hall.
The victim’s family waited for seven hours outside the upstairs courtroom. Hall’s family waited somewhere else.
Everyone worried that the jury might not be able to decide the fate of Shane Hall this day, that deliberations might have to be taken up again after another weekend of waiting, with more time added to a process that began when Shane Hall came home on a Friday night in September 2005 and put his hand inside the clothes and touched inside the body of the 13 year-old baby sitter.
There was too much waiting in this case. It took too long for the girl to tell her parents, too long before parents told police, the trial lasted longer than lawyers thought when it began in January.
After 4 p.m., it was learned that a juror had accidentally erased a portion of taped evidence. It took more time to create another copy.
It was approaching 5 p.m. when word came back, “we have a verdict.”
As they had throughout the trial, Hall’s family assembled behind his seat on the left side of the courtroom. Hall and his new wife leaned against the wall, occasionally talking to Hall’s lawyer.
Family and friends of the victim sat on the right. The judge kept the front row empty. Deputies were posted against the walls.
In a clear, loud, voice, with authority, the judge advised everyone present that contempt carried a penalty, $500 and up to six months in jail, and that he would find anyone who interrupted the proceedings to be in contempt. He wanted order in his courtroom. Then he summoned the jury.
“Has the jury reached a verdict?” he asked.
“We have, your honor,” relied the foreman.
Shane Hall was told by the judge to stand. Families held hands on each side of the courtroom. And the judge read the verdict on all six counts against him.
Guilty. On every one. Five counts of Sex Abuse in the First Degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration. It was not unanimous. The jury returned the guilty verdict with 11 out of 12 jurors making the call.
There were tears from families on each side of the courtroom. Halls new wife sobbed. The victim’s mother cried softly.
The judged thanked the jury. Hall’s lawyer asked that his client be allowed to remain free until he was sentenced later in the month of February.
The answer took a very short bit of time. Looking down from the bench at Shane Hall, the judge said, “Remanded to custody and held without bail.”
Shane Hall went to jail.
The victim’s family waited for seven hours outside the upstairs courtroom. Hall’s family waited somewhere else.
Everyone worried that the jury might not be able to decide the fate of Shane Hall this day, that deliberations might have to be taken up again after another weekend of waiting, with more time added to a process that began when Shane Hall came home on a Friday night in September 2005 and put his hand inside the clothes and touched inside the body of the 13 year-old baby sitter.
There was too much waiting in this case. It took too long for the girl to tell her parents, too long before parents told police, the trial lasted longer than lawyers thought when it began in January.
After 4 p.m., it was learned that a juror had accidentally erased a portion of taped evidence. It took more time to create another copy.
It was approaching 5 p.m. when word came back, “we have a verdict.”
As they had throughout the trial, Hall’s family assembled behind his seat on the left side of the courtroom. Hall and his new wife leaned against the wall, occasionally talking to Hall’s lawyer.
Family and friends of the victim sat on the right. The judge kept the front row empty. Deputies were posted against the walls.
In a clear, loud, voice, with authority, the judge advised everyone present that contempt carried a penalty, $500 and up to six months in jail, and that he would find anyone who interrupted the proceedings to be in contempt. He wanted order in his courtroom. Then he summoned the jury.
“Has the jury reached a verdict?” he asked.
“We have, your honor,” relied the foreman.
Shane Hall was told by the judge to stand. Families held hands on each side of the courtroom. And the judge read the verdict on all six counts against him.
Guilty. On every one. Five counts of Sex Abuse in the First Degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration. It was not unanimous. The jury returned the guilty verdict with 11 out of 12 jurors making the call.
There were tears from families on each side of the courtroom. Halls new wife sobbed. The victim’s mother cried softly.
The judged thanked the jury. Hall’s lawyer asked that his client be allowed to remain free until he was sentenced later in the month of February.
The answer took a very short bit of time. Looking down from the bench at Shane Hall, the judge said, “Remanded to custody and held without bail.”
Shane Hall went to jail.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Protect, protect
Again today a local pastor, his church seemingly set up as an enterprise, is on trial for molesting a 13-year-old. My own 13-year-old daughters, twins, are due back to me this weekend, their absence the parenting-plan-purgatory of a slow motion divorce. A 13-year-old girl dies in Iraq, blown apart by a bomber who, for reasons beyond me, targets a school.
Protect, protect, protect.
Weather in Seattle was lovely last weekend, so warm in the sun, though in the shade a chill breeze betrayed origins much farther north. The Space Needle had crowds on Sunday. Lovers with intertwined fingers brushed soft lips down a curve of throat, parents overwhelmed by the cacophony of their lives herded yelling children who were as safe as they were annoying.
1st street was less crowded and more interesting than the cliché of Pike Place Market, reminding again that though Portland is my home town, Seattle enfolds a center Stumptown has not yet found.
In the car, a couple is looking everywhere but at each other, she has tears in her eyes he can’t see. Lost to one another, again, hurt and melancholy have pushed aside touch and tenderness.
In the rhythm of life, joy seems so regularly married to despair. Those addicted to adrenaline are doomed to live with all of it, contrast etches the context, gives a feeling of seeing it new again, the pleasure of new skin to the caress of god’s finger tip.
Routine feels like death to the dopamine addicted, yet children depend on the dependable, on the anticipation of meals and scoldings and hugs, piano lessons and recess. They need the corral, they need to know where fences lay so they can learn to run at full gallop.
Protect, protect, protect.
A suicide bomber blows up a bakery in Israel killing three, maybe the baker and his wife, a customer from Peru. Eilat was a small coastal town on the Red Sea when I was there three lifetimes ago, when I had more lifetimes in front of me than behind.
Two men are talking to the street walker on the corner in Seattle, she has sores on thin legs, flea bites from flea bags, an immune system long ago compromised by drugs and disease.
The twins want to go snow boarding this weekend, Brina went to the top of the mountain last week with one friend, she is quietly proud, her sister went up halfway with another. They have discovered that sometimes intermediate slopes are easier than trying to remain a beginner. I worry I won’t be able to coach them in soccer this Spring.
There was a car wreck on the Santiam last week, not long before I arrived on the scene a young man lost control on black ice and slammed into the passenger door of an oncoming car and killed the couple inside, the physics of heads coming together at 60 miles per hour is fatal, the last and ultimate bonding, I imagine the sound, soft and hollow and wet.
One of the twins needs to do extra credit in science, ask the teacher to be moved from next to the disruptive boy. When I am not anxious about her future I wonder about his present, if all he needs is breakfast, or less time in front of the xBox or tv. When I am less vulnerable I am more generous.
Protect, protect, protect.
Protect, protect, protect.
Weather in Seattle was lovely last weekend, so warm in the sun, though in the shade a chill breeze betrayed origins much farther north. The Space Needle had crowds on Sunday. Lovers with intertwined fingers brushed soft lips down a curve of throat, parents overwhelmed by the cacophony of their lives herded yelling children who were as safe as they were annoying.
1st street was less crowded and more interesting than the cliché of Pike Place Market, reminding again that though Portland is my home town, Seattle enfolds a center Stumptown has not yet found.
In the car, a couple is looking everywhere but at each other, she has tears in her eyes he can’t see. Lost to one another, again, hurt and melancholy have pushed aside touch and tenderness.
In the rhythm of life, joy seems so regularly married to despair. Those addicted to adrenaline are doomed to live with all of it, contrast etches the context, gives a feeling of seeing it new again, the pleasure of new skin to the caress of god’s finger tip.
Routine feels like death to the dopamine addicted, yet children depend on the dependable, on the anticipation of meals and scoldings and hugs, piano lessons and recess. They need the corral, they need to know where fences lay so they can learn to run at full gallop.
Protect, protect, protect.
A suicide bomber blows up a bakery in Israel killing three, maybe the baker and his wife, a customer from Peru. Eilat was a small coastal town on the Red Sea when I was there three lifetimes ago, when I had more lifetimes in front of me than behind.
Two men are talking to the street walker on the corner in Seattle, she has sores on thin legs, flea bites from flea bags, an immune system long ago compromised by drugs and disease.
The twins want to go snow boarding this weekend, Brina went to the top of the mountain last week with one friend, she is quietly proud, her sister went up halfway with another. They have discovered that sometimes intermediate slopes are easier than trying to remain a beginner. I worry I won’t be able to coach them in soccer this Spring.
There was a car wreck on the Santiam last week, not long before I arrived on the scene a young man lost control on black ice and slammed into the passenger door of an oncoming car and killed the couple inside, the physics of heads coming together at 60 miles per hour is fatal, the last and ultimate bonding, I imagine the sound, soft and hollow and wet.
One of the twins needs to do extra credit in science, ask the teacher to be moved from next to the disruptive boy. When I am not anxious about her future I wonder about his present, if all he needs is breakfast, or less time in front of the xBox or tv. When I am less vulnerable I am more generous.
Protect, protect, protect.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
THE health care question
The headline in Sunday's "Oregonian" says Guv’nor Kuongoski will “go to the mat on kids health.”
Once again the governor leads from behind. But at least, on this, he’s pointed in the right direction.
Before Kulongoski claims too much credit, though, please remember that Senator Ben Westlund of Central Oregon, former Governor John Kitzhaber, and the states of Massachusetts, California and others, are much farther ahead in formulating viable plans for the uninsured.
Rather than pretending to be a champion, we think Kulongoski would better serve the cause by putting his shoulder to someone else’s wheel.
But why do we care at all? Aside from our own personal needs, why do we care that others have access to health care? To health insurance?
This question is NOT about money. The money problem comes later in the debate. Money is a detail, a mechanism, a requirement, a means to the end.
We can, and we should, debate long and hard over the money.
But not yet.
First, as a community, can we agree about the need? Can we agree, as Oregonians, that we share an obligation to our neighbors?
I don’t want my neighbor to bear the constant, excruciating pain of a rotting tooth. I don’t want my neighbor to see fever in her child and fear she can’t get a doctor. I don’t want my neighbor to miss a car payment because he needs 12 stitches in his hand.
Can we agree on that?
If not, then we live in two different states of Oregon.
Yes, yes, we all know that health care for the uninsured via the emergency room is available. It is also horribly inefficient, like paying a carpenter to sharpen a pencil. But again, let’s not talk yet about the money.
Let’s look at some numbers, instead, thoughtfully provided by reporters Michelle Cole and Don Colburn of “The Oregonian.” (Hey you two, if you are going to say the tobacco industry gave $200,000 to lawmakers, primarily Republicans, in a story about taxing tobacco, let’s have some NAMES! Who got the money? And what is the position of those lawmakers on taxing cigarettes for children’s health care?)
“The number and percentage of uninsured children in Oregon are at their highest levels in a decade. Nearly 118,000 Oregonians younger than 19 -- one in eight -- lacked insurance in late 2004, the most recent figures. New state data from 2006 are due by the end of this month, and more recent federal census numbers suggest that the proportion of uninsured children has not changed much in the past two years...” Cole/Colburn wrote.
One in eight. To broad-brush some statistics, this means that in my daughter’s 7th grade social studies class of 32 or so, four kids do not have health insurance.
I am not prepared to say that one of those children, who I know and for whom I am a mediocre soccer coach, should be without healthcare.
For any reason. I will take it out of my own pocket if need be, to a point.
And that is what insurance is, when others benefit. I take something out of my pocket for them. When I benefit, it is my neighbors taking it out of their pocket for me. If you would turn your back on one of those children, we live in different states of Oregon.
We believe, along with Senator Ben Westlund, that “Access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” as he quoted from the platform of the Democratic party.
This is a divide that may separate Oregonians, but it is a legitimate divide. Unlike “Death with Dignity” or abortion or gay rights, this actually does affect everybody. We need to debate this, long and hard. Does every Oregonian have a right to affordable health care?
The question deserves a vote, of some sort, unobscured by debates over money, over who will pay and how. Westlund or someone else should introduce this simple bill, that "access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right," in Oregon.
This should not be trivialized. Our very nation was founded on a statement of rights. From this, politics and debate and policy can follow.
Because I believe, if we can agree on this, we can figure out the rest.
Once again the governor leads from behind. But at least, on this, he’s pointed in the right direction.
Before Kulongoski claims too much credit, though, please remember that Senator Ben Westlund of Central Oregon, former Governor John Kitzhaber, and the states of Massachusetts, California and others, are much farther ahead in formulating viable plans for the uninsured.
Rather than pretending to be a champion, we think Kulongoski would better serve the cause by putting his shoulder to someone else’s wheel.
But why do we care at all? Aside from our own personal needs, why do we care that others have access to health care? To health insurance?
This question is NOT about money. The money problem comes later in the debate. Money is a detail, a mechanism, a requirement, a means to the end.
We can, and we should, debate long and hard over the money.
But not yet.
First, as a community, can we agree about the need? Can we agree, as Oregonians, that we share an obligation to our neighbors?
I don’t want my neighbor to bear the constant, excruciating pain of a rotting tooth. I don’t want my neighbor to see fever in her child and fear she can’t get a doctor. I don’t want my neighbor to miss a car payment because he needs 12 stitches in his hand.
Can we agree on that?
If not, then we live in two different states of Oregon.
Yes, yes, we all know that health care for the uninsured via the emergency room is available. It is also horribly inefficient, like paying a carpenter to sharpen a pencil. But again, let’s not talk yet about the money.
Let’s look at some numbers, instead, thoughtfully provided by reporters Michelle Cole and Don Colburn of “The Oregonian.” (Hey you two, if you are going to say the tobacco industry gave $200,000 to lawmakers, primarily Republicans, in a story about taxing tobacco, let’s have some NAMES! Who got the money? And what is the position of those lawmakers on taxing cigarettes for children’s health care?)
“The number and percentage of uninsured children in Oregon are at their highest levels in a decade. Nearly 118,000 Oregonians younger than 19 -- one in eight -- lacked insurance in late 2004, the most recent figures. New state data from 2006 are due by the end of this month, and more recent federal census numbers suggest that the proportion of uninsured children has not changed much in the past two years...” Cole/Colburn wrote.
One in eight. To broad-brush some statistics, this means that in my daughter’s 7th grade social studies class of 32 or so, four kids do not have health insurance.
I am not prepared to say that one of those children, who I know and for whom I am a mediocre soccer coach, should be without healthcare.
For any reason. I will take it out of my own pocket if need be, to a point.
And that is what insurance is, when others benefit. I take something out of my pocket for them. When I benefit, it is my neighbors taking it out of their pocket for me. If you would turn your back on one of those children, we live in different states of Oregon.
We believe, along with Senator Ben Westlund, that “Access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” as he quoted from the platform of the Democratic party.
This is a divide that may separate Oregonians, but it is a legitimate divide. Unlike “Death with Dignity” or abortion or gay rights, this actually does affect everybody. We need to debate this, long and hard. Does every Oregonian have a right to affordable health care?
The question deserves a vote, of some sort, unobscured by debates over money, over who will pay and how. Westlund or someone else should introduce this simple bill, that "access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right," in Oregon.
This should not be trivialized. Our very nation was founded on a statement of rights. From this, politics and debate and policy can follow.
Because I believe, if we can agree on this, we can figure out the rest.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Liberty and Liberals
"Single" seems to thrive on feelings he denies. In this case, feelings about "liberals." He sets up a "straw man" and then crows about knocking him down. (http://eyeonoregon.blogspot.com/2007/01/protect-and-serve.html)
Let's try this in language more plain: We did NOT say cops should not do anything when they feel threatened.
What we did say was that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the "I felt threatened!" defense, better training, possibly a change of culture in the union hall and squad room. Because there seems to be a pattern of behavior.
The other difference between bad cops and good liberals, “Single,” is that a bad cop carries a gun and a badge that allows him/her to victimize others with impunity. And those that do so damage all those good cops, the vast majority, we agree, as well as the rest of our social fabric.
That’s what we said.
The idea that "Single" may favor a society that, without much concern, allows police to batter a man because he didn't do "what the cops ask," even though the man was autistic and barely able to speak and follow directions, is a repugnant but possibly accurate representation of his whole philosophy.
There, a straw man of my very own.
We LIKE it when "Single" takes the opportunity to prove his "conservative manliness" over the "weak liberal" writer by saying there are only a few bad cops and a few good liberals.
It tugs at our “Wobblie” heart strings when “conservatives” do that sort of thing. Gives us a glow right from the 1940s and 1950s, not only a time of “Leave It to Beaver and “Father Knows Best,” but of Eric Hoffer and Alan Ginsberg and Jack Keouac and a vibrant left that was made up of working men and women who fought for these liberties on the battlefield and in the steel yard and ship yard and in the forests. Who bought bonds and made guns and sent their own children off to war.
Liberals are not “weak” by definition. They just misplaced their vitality, a few vital organs, too. Many of them from the past would not even be considered "liberal" today, but great confusion occurred after the 60s, with the boomers ascendant. It was the mushrooms, I just know it.
The left is ignorant about many things, like the effects of global free trade, and that all teachers are of value and should have equal access to the minds of our children, that good intentions are the equivalent of good action. The left can be quite confused about the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal quality (equality) of life.”
But the left is not inherently weak, unless they choose not to fight.
And the best thing to fight for is liberty, and against those who think that a “police state” is a liberty-enhancing, safer place to live.
Democracy is a funny thing. It is not the bed of liberty, as many suppose. In fact, one of the most important warnings we’ve been given about democracy are the dangers inherent in “Tyranny of the Majority.” And if the last two presidential elections didn't convince you, nothing will.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, which is why our founding fathers designed a government that was INTENDED to be slow and awkward and noisy and inefficient.
"Single" my friend, "warm and fuzzy?" The only thing fuzzy here is your thinking. Like you, many of those today who believe they are "conservative" are not, they are actually statists, corporatists, Fascists or theocrats, or some foul amalgam of all of those. Like Cheney’s puppet in the “W”hite House.
Let's try this in language more plain: We did NOT say cops should not do anything when they feel threatened.
What we did say was that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the "I felt threatened!" defense, better training, possibly a change of culture in the union hall and squad room. Because there seems to be a pattern of behavior.
The other difference between bad cops and good liberals, “Single,” is that a bad cop carries a gun and a badge that allows him/her to victimize others with impunity. And those that do so damage all those good cops, the vast majority, we agree, as well as the rest of our social fabric.
That’s what we said.
The idea that "Single" may favor a society that, without much concern, allows police to batter a man because he didn't do "what the cops ask," even though the man was autistic and barely able to speak and follow directions, is a repugnant but possibly accurate representation of his whole philosophy.
There, a straw man of my very own.
We LIKE it when "Single" takes the opportunity to prove his "conservative manliness" over the "weak liberal" writer by saying there are only a few bad cops and a few good liberals.
It tugs at our “Wobblie” heart strings when “conservatives” do that sort of thing. Gives us a glow right from the 1940s and 1950s, not only a time of “Leave It to Beaver and “Father Knows Best,” but of Eric Hoffer and Alan Ginsberg and Jack Keouac and a vibrant left that was made up of working men and women who fought for these liberties on the battlefield and in the steel yard and ship yard and in the forests. Who bought bonds and made guns and sent their own children off to war.
Liberals are not “weak” by definition. They just misplaced their vitality, a few vital organs, too. Many of them from the past would not even be considered "liberal" today, but great confusion occurred after the 60s, with the boomers ascendant. It was the mushrooms, I just know it.
The left is ignorant about many things, like the effects of global free trade, and that all teachers are of value and should have equal access to the minds of our children, that good intentions are the equivalent of good action. The left can be quite confused about the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal quality (equality) of life.”
But the left is not inherently weak, unless they choose not to fight.
And the best thing to fight for is liberty, and against those who think that a “police state” is a liberty-enhancing, safer place to live.
Democracy is a funny thing. It is not the bed of liberty, as many suppose. In fact, one of the most important warnings we’ve been given about democracy are the dangers inherent in “Tyranny of the Majority.” And if the last two presidential elections didn't convince you, nothing will.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, which is why our founding fathers designed a government that was INTENDED to be slow and awkward and noisy and inefficient.
"Single" my friend, "warm and fuzzy?" The only thing fuzzy here is your thinking. Like you, many of those today who believe they are "conservative" are not, they are actually statists, corporatists, Fascists or theocrats, or some foul amalgam of all of those. Like Cheney’s puppet in the “W”hite House.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Protect and Serve
A linchpin (not lynch) of our society is a belief in the fairness and honesty of those who administer our laws.
When a cop writes a ticket, we depend on his telling the truth.
We don’t want cops who pull over pretty women, give them bogus tickets and demand to see their tattoos.
We don’t want cops who shoot and kill an unarmed woman because she was too whacked out on drugs to get out of her car.
We don’t want cops who beat to death a homeless man on West Burnside.
We don’t want cops who lie.
Otherwise, we risk becoming an “us vs. them” society, and “them” has the guns, the unions and the courts on their side.
But the cards are stacked in favor of the police, even though we are a country based upon “innocent until proven guilty.”
Here’s the deal: laws on the use of force by cops are based on “feelings,” not facts: if he “feels” threatened, if he “believes” he is defending his life, a cop can do anything. They know this. Their unions know this. If an officer says he “felt” threatened, who can disagree?
Accused officers are schooled by union reps on how to respond to an investigation that does not occur until days (days!) after an incident has occurred.
That should change. The public needs to have confidence. Cops who may have acted inappropriately need to be interviewed immediately, even it we have to grant them a certain immunity from criminal prosecution.
We need the truth, not a union-sanitized version of events, even as we acknowledge an officer’s right to defend himself and even as we respect how tough their job actually is.
Why worry about this? Because turning a blind eye to injustice encourages an unofficial lawlessness that indirectly affects all of us today and could well victimize any of us in the future.
Why worry about this? Because respect begets respect, contempt begets contempt, and police need public support as much as the public needs the cops to protect them against evil scum that will prey on us if there are no cops to serve and protect.
Unions need to move beyond their own “us versus them” philosophy. They know who the good cops are, and the bad ones. While solidarity counts in that world, and cops need to depend on each other, unions should end their knee jerk defense of all policemen in every situation, and encourage a new open culture.
They could start by agreeing to a zero tolerance policy backed by testing on the use of steroids by their members, drugs that affect the “feelings” that can lead to a too quick trigger.
News reporters need to stop being so damned lazy and ask, over and over again if necessary, “Who is lying? Why are they lying? What are the consequences?” They need the courage and support to publish what they learn. With names.
We do need to be careful. We do not want to Californicate our laws, to shackle police with the fear that if they do their duty they will face an automatic investigation, reprimand, termination or a law suit.
At the same time, we need a way to get rid of those who have violated a public trust and cannot be trusted.
There is nowhere to go for justice when justice is has been corrupt, when “protect and serve” becomes “threaten and intimidate,” when thugs in uniform damage the integrity of all those good cops, the vast majority, who risk their lives in the line of duty.
When a cop writes a ticket, we depend on his telling the truth.
We don’t want cops who pull over pretty women, give them bogus tickets and demand to see their tattoos.
We don’t want cops who shoot and kill an unarmed woman because she was too whacked out on drugs to get out of her car.
We don’t want cops who beat to death a homeless man on West Burnside.
We don’t want cops who lie.
Otherwise, we risk becoming an “us vs. them” society, and “them” has the guns, the unions and the courts on their side.
But the cards are stacked in favor of the police, even though we are a country based upon “innocent until proven guilty.”
Here’s the deal: laws on the use of force by cops are based on “feelings,” not facts: if he “feels” threatened, if he “believes” he is defending his life, a cop can do anything. They know this. Their unions know this. If an officer says he “felt” threatened, who can disagree?
Accused officers are schooled by union reps on how to respond to an investigation that does not occur until days (days!) after an incident has occurred.
That should change. The public needs to have confidence. Cops who may have acted inappropriately need to be interviewed immediately, even it we have to grant them a certain immunity from criminal prosecution.
We need the truth, not a union-sanitized version of events, even as we acknowledge an officer’s right to defend himself and even as we respect how tough their job actually is.
Why worry about this? Because turning a blind eye to injustice encourages an unofficial lawlessness that indirectly affects all of us today and could well victimize any of us in the future.
Why worry about this? Because respect begets respect, contempt begets contempt, and police need public support as much as the public needs the cops to protect them against evil scum that will prey on us if there are no cops to serve and protect.
Unions need to move beyond their own “us versus them” philosophy. They know who the good cops are, and the bad ones. While solidarity counts in that world, and cops need to depend on each other, unions should end their knee jerk defense of all policemen in every situation, and encourage a new open culture.
They could start by agreeing to a zero tolerance policy backed by testing on the use of steroids by their members, drugs that affect the “feelings” that can lead to a too quick trigger.
News reporters need to stop being so damned lazy and ask, over and over again if necessary, “Who is lying? Why are they lying? What are the consequences?” They need the courage and support to publish what they learn. With names.
We do need to be careful. We do not want to Californicate our laws, to shackle police with the fear that if they do their duty they will face an automatic investigation, reprimand, termination or a law suit.
At the same time, we need a way to get rid of those who have violated a public trust and cannot be trusted.
There is nowhere to go for justice when justice is has been corrupt, when “protect and serve” becomes “threaten and intimidate,” when thugs in uniform damage the integrity of all those good cops, the vast majority, who risk their lives in the line of duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)