The deepest flaw in the so-called conservative movement in America today is the fact that it claims to have a foundation in Christian values yet fails to adhere to the core teaching of Christ: Love thy neighbor and thy enemy. For all its pro-religion rhetoric, the basic tenants of American conservatism are far from religious and anything but Christ-like.
While the conservative movement champions the elimination of abortion claiming that all human life is precious, it has vigorously defended this Country's pursuit of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocent lives in the process. At the same time it extols the sanctity of human life, the conservative movement advances the death penalty seeking to broaden its use. Both inconsistencies are justified with the assertion that terrorists and criminals are enemies of the state, and indeed they are, but warring and executing are not Christ-like behaviors and those who claim to be carrying out God’s will in the process are not fooling anyone, least of all the Almighty.
Nowhere in Christ’s teachings does one find a call for inequality and ill treatment of others. In fact, compassion and understanding for outcasts is a central theme of the Gospels, but the conservative movement sees inequality in a different light, justifying it as a legitimate means to an end. The conservative drive against homosexuals is characterized as a ‘war against sin’, and discrimination against that group is justified as a necessary tool designed to prevent homosexuality from taking root. Unequal treatment of homosexuals is not only condoned, it is championed. Imagine if the victim in Christ's “Good Samaritan” parable was a homosexual instead of a robbery victim. Today's American conservative movement would have passed him by too and felt totally justified. The lesson here: just because inequity is popular among Christian conservatives doesn’t make it Christian.
Another core value of conservatism is self-reliance. Those who carry their own weight are adjudged righteous and those who don’t lazy and worthless. The conservative movement champions individualism and shuns social dependence on one another. Never mind that Christ advocated caring for the poor and less fortunate. Forget that Christ encouraged community building and shunned individual-promotion over the advancement of all. In the conservative movement self-advancement is number one!
In the same vein conservatism generally advocates a reduction in government efforts to feed, shelter and provide medical care to the poor and elderly. And while it is rightfully claimed that churches and individuals are more effective than government in providing said services, the simple fact is that churches and individuals have come nowhere close to meeting all the needs of the poor either. Without government intervention millions would suffer, a fact the conservative movement conveniently ignores.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
THE UNEMPLOYED HAVE LITTLE REASON TO CELEBRATE LABOR DAY
Today is a national holiday celebrating labor, but a lot of former laborers are not celebrating. Sadly, on this Labor Day, almost 10% of working-age people in America are looking for work, but can't find it. The "Help Wanted" section of the newspaper is 1/10th the size it was 5 years ago, and for many folks looking for employment, the prospect of finding a job anytime soon is slim-to-none.
The Obama administration made addressing our broken health care system the first priority of its tenure in office, a decision that was understandable considering the substantial drag that health care costs places upon our economy, but while the health care industry employs large numbers of our work force, it has never been an industry that jump-starts hiring in a bad economic climate. Construction and manufacturing have been the traditional leaders in job creation, though often not simultaneously.
When World War II commenced, America was in the throes of a decade-long depression, but virtually overnight, the need to manufacture war armaments created tens of thousands of jobs and the road to economic recovery was greatly shortened. Manufacturing was the catalyst. In the early 90's, following the end of the first Iraq war, this country experienced a difficult recession and the new President, Bill Clinton, recognized that American manufacturing was not poised to lead an economic recovery. Clinton decided, and wisely so, that addressing America's deteriorating infra-structure (roads, bridges, schools, public buildings and parks) was the shortest way to economic recovery because it killed two birds with one stone – created jobs & repaired public infra-structure with the same dollar. Construction was the catalyst, and it ushered in the longest period of economic growth this country has ever experienced.
In today's economy, American manufacturing is not poised to lead an economic recovery because of its decade long-practice of exporting American jobs to foreign countries in the name of increasing bottom-line profits.
Republicans argue that lower business taxes will spur job creation in the manufacturing sector, but that claim lacks credibility when you consider that during the entire Bush Administration from 2001 to 2009, business taxes were decreasing and businesses responded by sending more and more jobs overseas. Even common sense weighs against the "lower business tax" argument. Businesses create jobs when there is an increased demand for their product. Without demand for products, businesses shrink their work force, not expand it. When demand for products increase, more workers can be hired. A reduction in business taxation does not create a demand for more products. Only an increase in the number of people working will fuel a demand for more products, and hence, an increase in hiring.
What about construction? Can it lead the way to economic recovery? It did in 1993. Can it do it again? While that's possible, there are different forces at work in today's economy that were not problems in 1993. Chiefly among them is the housing crisis. In 1993, new housing construction was down, but not on life-support, and the housing market in general was not in a state of collapse. Once infra-structure job creation took hold, advances in new home construction picked up and helped fuel the recovery. With today's housing market condition being what it is, little can be expected from it in terms of starting or fueling economic recovery. Simply treading water would be a plus.
Personally, I think government construction is still our best bet. It worked in 1993 and it still gives the taxpayer the best bang for their buck – job creation & infra-structure improvement with the same tax dollar.
Unfortunately, having spent whatever political capital he had on health care reform, the President currently finds himself fighting an uphill battle to convince the public to do what is necessary to create more jobs; that is, to increase federal spending to create jobs. To the public, that kind of spending is a pill too bitter to swallow. That's a shame, but that's politics.
What would I do? Well, I'd distribute fifty billion dollars in the form of direct emergency grants. Twenty-five million of those dollars would be immediately available to Habitat for Humanity programs to hire unemployed workers who were collecting unemployment compensation or had their benefits exhausted. I would require those workers be paid $15/hour and demand a 40-hour work week in return. That money would create millions jobs, help reduce dependency on public-financed housing and enhance the public image of a worthwhile program (Habitat for Humanity) that excels at promoting community involvement, a strong work ethic and the efficient and judicious use of funding.
The remaining twenty-five billion I would make available to state, county, schools and local governments to finance construction and/or improvements to highways, bridges and buildings. It worked in 1993. There's no reason why it can't work again.
There are millions of people in American anxious to be productive again. They deserve that chance. Otherwise, why are the rest of us celebrating?
The Obama administration made addressing our broken health care system the first priority of its tenure in office, a decision that was understandable considering the substantial drag that health care costs places upon our economy, but while the health care industry employs large numbers of our work force, it has never been an industry that jump-starts hiring in a bad economic climate. Construction and manufacturing have been the traditional leaders in job creation, though often not simultaneously.
When World War II commenced, America was in the throes of a decade-long depression, but virtually overnight, the need to manufacture war armaments created tens of thousands of jobs and the road to economic recovery was greatly shortened. Manufacturing was the catalyst. In the early 90's, following the end of the first Iraq war, this country experienced a difficult recession and the new President, Bill Clinton, recognized that American manufacturing was not poised to lead an economic recovery. Clinton decided, and wisely so, that addressing America's deteriorating infra-structure (roads, bridges, schools, public buildings and parks) was the shortest way to economic recovery because it killed two birds with one stone – created jobs & repaired public infra-structure with the same dollar. Construction was the catalyst, and it ushered in the longest period of economic growth this country has ever experienced.
In today's economy, American manufacturing is not poised to lead an economic recovery because of its decade long-practice of exporting American jobs to foreign countries in the name of increasing bottom-line profits.
Republicans argue that lower business taxes will spur job creation in the manufacturing sector, but that claim lacks credibility when you consider that during the entire Bush Administration from 2001 to 2009, business taxes were decreasing and businesses responded by sending more and more jobs overseas. Even common sense weighs against the "lower business tax" argument. Businesses create jobs when there is an increased demand for their product. Without demand for products, businesses shrink their work force, not expand it. When demand for products increase, more workers can be hired. A reduction in business taxation does not create a demand for more products. Only an increase in the number of people working will fuel a demand for more products, and hence, an increase in hiring.
What about construction? Can it lead the way to economic recovery? It did in 1993. Can it do it again? While that's possible, there are different forces at work in today's economy that were not problems in 1993. Chiefly among them is the housing crisis. In 1993, new housing construction was down, but not on life-support, and the housing market in general was not in a state of collapse. Once infra-structure job creation took hold, advances in new home construction picked up and helped fuel the recovery. With today's housing market condition being what it is, little can be expected from it in terms of starting or fueling economic recovery. Simply treading water would be a plus.
Personally, I think government construction is still our best bet. It worked in 1993 and it still gives the taxpayer the best bang for their buck – job creation & infra-structure improvement with the same tax dollar.
Unfortunately, having spent whatever political capital he had on health care reform, the President currently finds himself fighting an uphill battle to convince the public to do what is necessary to create more jobs; that is, to increase federal spending to create jobs. To the public, that kind of spending is a pill too bitter to swallow. That's a shame, but that's politics.
What would I do? Well, I'd distribute fifty billion dollars in the form of direct emergency grants. Twenty-five million of those dollars would be immediately available to Habitat for Humanity programs to hire unemployed workers who were collecting unemployment compensation or had their benefits exhausted. I would require those workers be paid $15/hour and demand a 40-hour work week in return. That money would create millions jobs, help reduce dependency on public-financed housing and enhance the public image of a worthwhile program (Habitat for Humanity) that excels at promoting community involvement, a strong work ethic and the efficient and judicious use of funding.
The remaining twenty-five billion I would make available to state, county, schools and local governments to finance construction and/or improvements to highways, bridges and buildings. It worked in 1993. There's no reason why it can't work again.
There are millions of people in American anxious to be productive again. They deserve that chance. Otherwise, why are the rest of us celebrating?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
QUESTIONING GOD'S EXISTENCE
Over the years, I've come to appreciate the fact that you can greatly admire a person without having to agree with everything that person says or does or believes. And that's a good virtue to have, because the moment you start demonizing everyone who holds an opinion you don't, is the moment you become incredibly stupid or incredibly lonely, or both.
Noted British physicist, Stephen Hawking, is releasing a book this week entitled "The Grand Design" in which he reportedly argues that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. It's not clear from all the pre-release media accounts of the book whether Hawking continues to believe in the existence of God, but even if he does; his premise that God was not the instrument setting off the creation of the universe we know is bound to set off a demonizing wave of public opinion against him. Given the public's habit of overreacting, physicists in general will take a hit too. Both are unfortunate.
Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known, has contributed more to the world's understanding of cosmology and quantum physics than anyone, except perhaps Albert Einstein, and yet, I'm afraid that his personal questioning of the existence of God or God's role in creation are likely to overshadow his life's work and achievements in the minds of many. That's sad too.
I admire Stephen Hawking, not only as a brilliant physicist, but as a determined human being who has spent his entire adult life battling a neuro muscular dystrophy, a condition that confines him to a wheelchair and only allows him to speak through a voice synthesizer. Much of the work ordinary physicists do on computers and in laboratories, Hawking does in his head, because his physical ailment has rendered him paralyzed. And yet, in spite of all his physical limitations, Hawking continues unabated in his drive to contribute to the knowledge of mankind. Effort of that caliber is nothing short of remarkable.
I believe in a God that Hawking may or may believe in, but I also support Hawking's right to question the existence of God and to reach a conclusion that might not conform to mine. Whatever his conclusion on that particular question turns out to be, that conclusion does not affect how I chose to view Hawking or his work, because I think belief in God is a matter of faith, and what is faith if there is no questioning?
Noted British physicist, Stephen Hawking, is releasing a book this week entitled "The Grand Design" in which he reportedly argues that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. It's not clear from all the pre-release media accounts of the book whether Hawking continues to believe in the existence of God, but even if he does; his premise that God was not the instrument setting off the creation of the universe we know is bound to set off a demonizing wave of public opinion against him. Given the public's habit of overreacting, physicists in general will take a hit too. Both are unfortunate.
Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known, has contributed more to the world's understanding of cosmology and quantum physics than anyone, except perhaps Albert Einstein, and yet, I'm afraid that his personal questioning of the existence of God or God's role in creation are likely to overshadow his life's work and achievements in the minds of many. That's sad too.
I admire Stephen Hawking, not only as a brilliant physicist, but as a determined human being who has spent his entire adult life battling a neuro muscular dystrophy, a condition that confines him to a wheelchair and only allows him to speak through a voice synthesizer. Much of the work ordinary physicists do on computers and in laboratories, Hawking does in his head, because his physical ailment has rendered him paralyzed. And yet, in spite of all his physical limitations, Hawking continues unabated in his drive to contribute to the knowledge of mankind. Effort of that caliber is nothing short of remarkable.
I believe in a God that Hawking may or may believe in, but I also support Hawking's right to question the existence of God and to reach a conclusion that might not conform to mine. Whatever his conclusion on that particular question turns out to be, that conclusion does not affect how I chose to view Hawking or his work, because I think belief in God is a matter of faith, and what is faith if there is no questioning?
Saturday, September 4, 2010
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (Part II)
The greatest myth bandied about these days is the myth that the founding fathers of our republic intended to create a republic based on Judeo-Christian principles. This myth may give comfort to millions who yearn for a society based solely on the religious doctrine of our nation's two most predominant religions – Judaism and Christianity, but that yearning was not shared by the founding fathers of this republic and claims to the contrary are nothing more than wishful thinking. They are surely not historical fact.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is recognized as the primary drafter of the United States Constitution. These were his stated views on government and religion:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, had these words to say on the subject:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. " --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
Benjamin Franklin noted:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
George Washington had this to say on the subject:
"[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of . . . every species of religious persecution. . . ."
John Adams wrote:
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
"[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . ." (From "The Treaty with Tripoli," approved by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.)
Andrew Jackson noted:
"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (In a statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)
Alexander Hamilton proclaimed:
"The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . ."
Thomas Paine wrote:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."
Even French political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the Founder's view that religion had no place in government or political affairs. He wrote:
"I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that."
For those who are quick to point out that current-day legislative bodies employ the practice of opening sessions with prayer, perhaps they would be surprised that the founding fathers were decidedly against the practice. Franklin Steiner, a noted constitutional historian observed:
"[W]hen it was proposed to open the Constitutional Convention, over which he [George Washington] presided, with prayer, the motion was lost. Only three or four of the delegates favored it, and it is not recorded that Washington was one of them."
Finally, the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) states:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The simple truth of the matter is that America's founding fathers would be aghast at hearing modern day political rhetoric suggesting they formulated a government based on religious principles and intended that government to reflect the religious precepts of Christianity and Judaism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is recognized as the primary drafter of the United States Constitution. These were his stated views on government and religion:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, had these words to say on the subject:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. " --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
Benjamin Franklin noted:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
George Washington had this to say on the subject:
"[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of . . . every species of religious persecution. . . ."
John Adams wrote:
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
"[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . ." (From "The Treaty with Tripoli," approved by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.)
Andrew Jackson noted:
"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (In a statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)
Alexander Hamilton proclaimed:
"The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . ."
Thomas Paine wrote:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."
Even French political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the Founder's view that religion had no place in government or political affairs. He wrote:
"I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that."
For those who are quick to point out that current-day legislative bodies employ the practice of opening sessions with prayer, perhaps they would be surprised that the founding fathers were decidedly against the practice. Franklin Steiner, a noted constitutional historian observed:
"[W]hen it was proposed to open the Constitutional Convention, over which he [George Washington] presided, with prayer, the motion was lost. Only three or four of the delegates favored it, and it is not recorded that Washington was one of them."
Finally, the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) states:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The simple truth of the matter is that America's founding fathers would be aghast at hearing modern day political rhetoric suggesting they formulated a government based on religious principles and intended that government to reflect the religious precepts of Christianity and Judaism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Friday, September 3, 2010
MUTED RESPONSE TO RAPE IN AMERICAN PRISONS
I know quite a few people who think if prisoners get raped behind bars it’s really nothing society should get concerned about. Their attitude stems from the belief that human degradation is part and parcel of life in prison and whatever happens to an inmate is justifiable as expected punishment for whatever landed the prisoner in jail in the first place.
Given the widespread prevalence of that type attitude in America, it comes as no surprise to me that a report on prison rape recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics would not garner much media attention or generate a groundswell of support in the population to push for much-needed reform.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that last year, at least 88,500 federal, state and local prison inmates were raped or were the victim of a sexual-related assault while in prison. That 88,500 figure included only reported incidents and the (BJS) report acknowledged that the actual figure was, in all probably, significantly higher.
With those kinds of figures floating around, people ought to be upset, but by and large, they're not, and that says something bad about our society!
I think one reason for the massive amount of apathy on this issue in our society is that we've become so adept at the art of depersonalization and demonizing. Whenever we're confronted by somebody who does not share our thoughts, values or code of acceptable conduct, we immediately categorize them in our mind as worthless and something less than human. Once another individual takes on the veneer of a sub-human demon, justifying sub-human treatment of that individual is no longer a big leap. In fact, for many, is becomes the next logical step.
Whether we realize it or not, our attitudes on this kind of matter reflect how we confront many other ethical issues that arise in our life, and I think it behooves us all to take a second look at this subject. If we really want to promote ourselves as being pro-life (in favor of life for all), it seems to me that concept should be applied to everybody, even prisoners.
Given the widespread prevalence of that type attitude in America, it comes as no surprise to me that a report on prison rape recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics would not garner much media attention or generate a groundswell of support in the population to push for much-needed reform.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that last year, at least 88,500 federal, state and local prison inmates were raped or were the victim of a sexual-related assault while in prison. That 88,500 figure included only reported incidents and the (BJS) report acknowledged that the actual figure was, in all probably, significantly higher.
With those kinds of figures floating around, people ought to be upset, but by and large, they're not, and that says something bad about our society!
I think one reason for the massive amount of apathy on this issue in our society is that we've become so adept at the art of depersonalization and demonizing. Whenever we're confronted by somebody who does not share our thoughts, values or code of acceptable conduct, we immediately categorize them in our mind as worthless and something less than human. Once another individual takes on the veneer of a sub-human demon, justifying sub-human treatment of that individual is no longer a big leap. In fact, for many, is becomes the next logical step.
Whether we realize it or not, our attitudes on this kind of matter reflect how we confront many other ethical issues that arise in our life, and I think it behooves us all to take a second look at this subject. If we really want to promote ourselves as being pro-life (in favor of life for all), it seems to me that concept should be applied to everybody, even prisoners.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
ENGLISH IS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotal and by scientifically conducted studies, that 96% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn enough English to get by, but not much more. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are fluent in their parents’ native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but that’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, a similar percentage indicated that they found that social barriers hindered their efforts to learn English and so they used their native language because it felt comfortable to them.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a similar gripe and ended with the view that anybody who does not speak English should be denied entry into the United States. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly is a popular viewpoint.
I shouldn't have to mention that from a legal position, English already IS our official language. So-called efforts to “establish” English as our official language are anything but that, because English as our official language is what already exists. What "English-Only" proponents want to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea – but again, it’s a pretty popular one.
Proponents of the issue seem to think that this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who write me to bitch about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, that latter part of the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but that’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, a similar percentage indicated that they found that social barriers hindered their efforts to learn English and so they used their native language because it felt comfortable to them.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a similar gripe and ended with the view that anybody who does not speak English should be denied entry into the United States. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly is a popular viewpoint.
I shouldn't have to mention that from a legal position, English already IS our official language. So-called efforts to “establish” English as our official language are anything but that, because English as our official language is what already exists. What "English-Only" proponents want to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea – but again, it’s a pretty popular one.
Proponents of the issue seem to think that this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who write me to bitch about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, that latter part of the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
POLITICAL SAUSAGE
WARNING: This column should not be read in conjunction with any meal. Do not consider the information that follows within one hour of any repast where sausage is or was being served. Individuals with acid reflux, weak stomachs, peptic ulcers and other gastro-intestinal problems should see their physician before reading.
Former President Bush's White House chief of staff, Andrew Card noted in a press conference years ago, “There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. We gave the sausage machine all of the right ingredients; they have to churn. And I’m confident that when they turn that sausage out it’ll be the right kind of sausage for America.”
Never, in my own humble opinion, has such a high-ranking politician spoken more truthful words! There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. And you can bet they’re making congressional sausage.
Andrew Card's words prompted me to search the Internet to learn all I could about sausage production with the hope that it would provide a clue as to what kind of sausage Congress could produce. I visited the “Google” search engine, typed in the word “Sausage” and voila, 918,000 sausage websites appeared on the screen. One might consider it the “Mother of All Electronic Smorgasbords”.
My sausage search proved to be quite fascinating and I picked up some pretty interesting tidbits. For example, did you know that sausage is known to have peculiar effects upon the digestive system? You can find out what they are at The Real Man’s Cookbook, located at the website: www.conservativebookstore.com! I’ve followed my share of conservative congressmen over the years and long suspected they had problems with their digestive tracts. At least now I know why.
Here are a few other interesting items. There’s actually a National Hot Dog and Sausage Council! You can visit their website at www.hot-dog.org. I didn’t check to see what they do, but if their work involves visiting fairs and taste-testing sausage sandwiches, I’d like to volunteer my services. Another website (www.vikingrange.com) boasted that sausage and bow ties is actually an old Viking recipe. Who knew?
Finally, I ran across an article about a guy who purportedly ate cat sausage, which he said, “was hot and spicy and tasted great”, in a Mexican nightclub. The thought of cat sausage sounded gross and I would have bypassed the article immediately except for its web address. www.texasonline.net/langley/columns/sausage.htm. Wasn’t President Bush from Texas? Isn’t the C.I.A. located in Langley? A good conspiracy buff might assume a connection!
I’m sorry. In all the excitement about the world of sausage, I seem to have lost track of my intended topic: congressional sausage.
Many of you may recall seeing at one time or another on television the Scholastic Rock animated version of how a “Bill” becomes a “Law”. The cartoon is a cute, informative and simplistic educational tool for teaching the basics of our legislative process.
If, however, you want to see how Congress and the sausage-making machine really work, go to the website: http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Pig/Prepare%20Pig/PreparePig.htm. It will prove just how accurate Andrew Card's observation really was.
For those busy to search that site, let me pass on a few quotes it contained. “Making sausage is a messy business.” (Often said of passing legislation) “It also smells.” (Need I say more?) “Sausage makers blow a lot.” (Name a member of Congress that doesn’t) “The guts are taken out and fed to the dogs.” (Meaningful proposals seldom escape Congress with their gut intact) “Eventually, the sausage is boiled in pork broth”. (What spending bill isn’t?)
I also learned in my Internet search that “the fermentation step in sausage production involves the action of a lactic acid bacterium on the sugar added to ground meat”. What that means is that Congress is going to take a problem, sugarcoat it, let it ferment and then serve it to us in an intestinal jacket!
A safety bulletin at www.safetyalerts.com/articles/new.02/flabeef.htm addressed a Florida company’s sausage recall when testing revealed the presence of a bacterium in their product. The article didn’t say how the “bacterium” made its way into the sausage, but I just assumed that somewhere in the process sanitation was a bit lacking or the contamination wouldn’t have occurred.
Given that “politics is a dirty business” and the legislative process is so rampant with less than spotless hands, one should expect congressional sausage to be more contaminated than anything you’d see on the supermarket shelf.
Can I interest anyone in some sausage for dinner?
Former President Bush's White House chief of staff, Andrew Card noted in a press conference years ago, “There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. We gave the sausage machine all of the right ingredients; they have to churn. And I’m confident that when they turn that sausage out it’ll be the right kind of sausage for America.”
Never, in my own humble opinion, has such a high-ranking politician spoken more truthful words! There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. And you can bet they’re making congressional sausage.
Andrew Card's words prompted me to search the Internet to learn all I could about sausage production with the hope that it would provide a clue as to what kind of sausage Congress could produce. I visited the “Google” search engine, typed in the word “Sausage” and voila, 918,000 sausage websites appeared on the screen. One might consider it the “Mother of All Electronic Smorgasbords”.
My sausage search proved to be quite fascinating and I picked up some pretty interesting tidbits. For example, did you know that sausage is known to have peculiar effects upon the digestive system? You can find out what they are at The Real Man’s Cookbook, located at the website: www.conservativebookstore.com! I’ve followed my share of conservative congressmen over the years and long suspected they had problems with their digestive tracts. At least now I know why.
Here are a few other interesting items. There’s actually a National Hot Dog and Sausage Council! You can visit their website at www.hot-dog.org. I didn’t check to see what they do, but if their work involves visiting fairs and taste-testing sausage sandwiches, I’d like to volunteer my services. Another website (www.vikingrange.com) boasted that sausage and bow ties is actually an old Viking recipe. Who knew?
Finally, I ran across an article about a guy who purportedly ate cat sausage, which he said, “was hot and spicy and tasted great”, in a Mexican nightclub. The thought of cat sausage sounded gross and I would have bypassed the article immediately except for its web address. www.texasonline.net/langley/columns/sausage.htm. Wasn’t President Bush from Texas? Isn’t the C.I.A. located in Langley? A good conspiracy buff might assume a connection!
I’m sorry. In all the excitement about the world of sausage, I seem to have lost track of my intended topic: congressional sausage.
Many of you may recall seeing at one time or another on television the Scholastic Rock animated version of how a “Bill” becomes a “Law”. The cartoon is a cute, informative and simplistic educational tool for teaching the basics of our legislative process.
If, however, you want to see how Congress and the sausage-making machine really work, go to the website: http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Pig/Prepare%20Pig/PreparePig.htm. It will prove just how accurate Andrew Card's observation really was.
For those busy to search that site, let me pass on a few quotes it contained. “Making sausage is a messy business.” (Often said of passing legislation) “It also smells.” (Need I say more?) “Sausage makers blow a lot.” (Name a member of Congress that doesn’t) “The guts are taken out and fed to the dogs.” (Meaningful proposals seldom escape Congress with their gut intact) “Eventually, the sausage is boiled in pork broth”. (What spending bill isn’t?)
I also learned in my Internet search that “the fermentation step in sausage production involves the action of a lactic acid bacterium on the sugar added to ground meat”. What that means is that Congress is going to take a problem, sugarcoat it, let it ferment and then serve it to us in an intestinal jacket!
A safety bulletin at www.safetyalerts.com/articles/new.02/flabeef.htm addressed a Florida company’s sausage recall when testing revealed the presence of a bacterium in their product. The article didn’t say how the “bacterium” made its way into the sausage, but I just assumed that somewhere in the process sanitation was a bit lacking or the contamination wouldn’t have occurred.
Given that “politics is a dirty business” and the legislative process is so rampant with less than spotless hands, one should expect congressional sausage to be more contaminated than anything you’d see on the supermarket shelf.
Can I interest anyone in some sausage for dinner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)