"The world is my country; all mankind are my brethren; and to do good is my religion" - Thomas Paine

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" - Robert F. Kennedy

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Post-Election Frustration


The following was sent out to a group of Obama supporters from a fellow supporter who has been feeling some frustration with Washington since last year's election. It is feelings like this that President Obama and the Democrats need to address if they wish to rekindle the energy that led to their success in the 2008 elections:


I could send you the links that have circulated widely on this listserv regarding the differences between the parties and I hate to be the cynic of the day, but I honestly don’t see much difference of substance between Democrats and Republicans anymore. We’ve been divided into three camps; Right, Left and Center. I’ve always tended to be more conservative (by the old definition) than liberal, perhaps in the same sense that Jesus gave by the example of his parables. We are to care for the poor in an ethical way. We are to take responsibility for our own lives, but never turn away from those who are ailing, hurting, suffering.

I think the right wing has had power for so long because of wedge issues and the media’s almost juvenile crushes on wedge issues. Just think about how much time and energy has been spent lately trying to get media personalities off the air versus advocacy for a single-payer health care system. These people are not journalists; they make their money by shocking people’s sensibilities and then editorializing the news. You’d think in this day and age we’d have 24/7 coverage of every news story, global to local, on live feeds with no commentary and reporters here and there to give the news context and cable news outlets would exist in abundance where we could find the editorial comment that fits our political beliefs. But, no, we’re limited to what “the powers that be” want us to see and the advertising every five minutes that tells us what we need to have in our lives to be happy, healthy, financially secure, etc., etc., etc.

I was a registered Democrat from 1976 until shortly after the election last year. I was active in party politics, was an elected precinct captain, worked on national and local campaigns and ballot issues. I also was an Election’s Board Supervisor for my county until Oregon finally finagled all absentee balloting (vote-by-mail). Instituting vote-by-mail became a political issue here to further one man’s career and in the end he crashed and burned because of skeletons in his closet and coziness with the mailing company chosen to contract out the mailing process.

I’d lost faith in the political and election’s processes until March of 2008 when I finally trusted and put my support behind one Barack H. Obama. Here was someone different than the "Clintonistas" who in my opinion had shamed the Democratic Party with their globalist compromises and personal foibles...I did as much as I could do to get Mr. Obama elected.

Reality sank in during the days following the election. Here was a good man who wants to do good things being hamstrung by political realities and filling key government posts with people who’d helped create some of the problems we’re trying to fix. I truly believe that if there had been a viable third political party in this country, we’d still have a President Obama, but he’d be neither Democrat nor Republican; he’d be a progressive with a Christian soul and beholden only to us, the electorate.

As Roman Catholics we’ve made many compromises to empower that which will in the long run save the lives of the unborn, protect the elderly and infirm, stop the death penalty, and allow for fair and lawful immigration into our beloved country. Those compromises sometimes become very political when the media gets involved or we go overboard in wanting to help the helpless. Am I a racist because I know that a porous border that allows my Catholic brothers and sisters to escape poverty and oppression also endangers their lives, allows for drug lords, gang members, and other criminals to freely enter this country without accountability, and does indeed take away jobs, healthcare and education from the poorest of the poor who are American citizens? Some would say so, but I know I’m more than any one label that people can stick on my forehead to quickly identify where I stand politically. When the H1N1 flu pandemic began last spring I was almost in shock that we didn’t put any restrictions in place on foot and car traffic from Mexico while we tried to figure out just what kind of health crises we were facing. I remember a government official; I think it was CDC, that said if we closed the border we wouldn’t be able to get replacement parts for respirators needed for the pulmonary effects of the flu. What? Cinco de Mayo is a beautiful day of celebration, but only a few jurisdictions had the common sense to advise people that there would be vendors traveling from Mexico for the events and to take appropriate precautions. Nope, we were told to wash our hands and sneeze into tissues. I hope this doesn’t sound racist because if you knew me you’d know how much I supported the farm worker movements, the grape boycotts, etc., during the 70’s. It was just common sense to me that we should at the very least be monitoring the flow of the new flu and its potentials as it migrated into the U.S. Most of our politicians have no backbone because their fund raising conflicts sometimes with policy making. I’ve had enough of that and am totally ready for publicly funded campaign finance reform.

I resigned from the Democratic party and became an Independent right after the election last year when Harry Reid allowed Joe Lieberman (who pitched a hissy fit) to keep his Homeland Security Chair and I’d finally had enough of the duplicity of Nancy “Impeachment is off the Table” Pelosi. Given my choice, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et. al., would be awaiting trail for crimes against humanity.

Today we still have limited forms of rendition, we’re still spying on our own without warrants, capitalism operates without a conscience, and we allow ourselves to be divided by the latest “blah, blah, blah” from what used to be news but is now only tabloid stories between advertising.

The up side of all of this is that we have a man of goodwill in the White House who will listen to us. He can be persuaded by our reasoned and reasonable approaches to living and dying. I’m sorry to be on the soapbox so long today and really have no tangible answer to your question. The best I can do is to paraphrase our President and tell you that one voice can multiply and change the world. I think that we owe it to ourselves, our President, our politicians, our communities and the world to speak out our truth, whatever it may be and hope that our words will be the ones that make a difference.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back

The health care fight has turned ugly, fast. And lies about reform are spreading via anonymous email chains. Here are the real facts that you need to know:
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!
The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."1 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.2
If you'd like to read the actual section of the legislation that spawned these outrageous claims (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) for yourself, here it is. It's pretty boring stuff, which is why the accusations that it creates "death panels" is so absurd. But don't take our word for it, read it yourself.
Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!
The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.
Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!
The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.6 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.
Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!
The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.7 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.8
Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12
P.S. Want more? Check out this great new White House "Reality Check" website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ or this excellent piece from Health Care for America Now on some of the most outrageous lies: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51729

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Gay Marriage: Help Me Understand

Although it will likely become obvious while perusing this, I would like to begin by clarifying that I am neither a legal nor Constitutional scholar (no matter what I might tell myself to the contrary). With that in mind, I would ask that you, the educated reader, help clarify something for me:
Why is the legal definition of marriage tied so inexorably to the religious definition?
It seems that the two are only superficially related and should not be viewed under the same light. In a civil sense, marriage is a legal contract between two individuals that provides for benefits such as:
  • Permitting the filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
  • Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
  • Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
  • Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
  • Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
  • Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
  • Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
  • Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
  • Receiving public assistance benefits.
  • Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
  • Applying for joint foster care rights.
  • Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
  • Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Outside of the specific governmental benefits are other advantages that tie to the legality of the union such as:

  • Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
  • Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
  • Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
  • Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
  • Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
  • Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
  • Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
  • Making burial or other final arrangements. 1

On the other hand, the religious union known as marriage is a faith community’s acknowledgement of a unique relationship between two individuals. It is recognition that a particular bond exists, and it is often tied to a sanction of the union by the hierarchy of the Church or faith community often, yet not exclusively, as proxy for a blessing from God or a supreme being. This may be tied to understandings or rules regarding the responsibilities of one partner towards the other. It may also relate to practices surrounding cohabitation or procreation. Of course, the union may provide benefits within that faith community as well, but those would be limited based on the laws and practices of that community and would have no legal bearing outside that community.

It is also important to consider that a religious marriage ceremony or one performed by a representative of a faith community is not necessarily legally binding in and of itself. The legal union is a separate agreement recognized by the governing body, typically the state. Therefore, without a marriage license, and the subsequent acknowledgement by the state that the union is valid, a religious ceremony has no weight in the eyes of the government. The reverse is also true. A couple married in a legal ceremony, perhaps by a justice of the peace, are not automatically considered married in the eyes of all faith communities. There is a separation between the church and the state in this recognition of the marriage.

Based on these facts, why is it that the civil, or legal, definition of marriage is so heavily weighted to reflect the beliefs of certain faith communities, particularly the belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman? What part of the legal obligations and benefits of the union require that gender be taken into consideration?

Some argue that homosexuality is “unnatural,” using that as evidence for limiting the rights of those who practice it. However, most current scientific research acknowledges that homosexuality is more a characteristic of nature than nurture. It is something that a person either is or is not, rather than a choice that an individual makes. Like having dark skin opposed to light skin or being male versus being female. Our society has already recognized that limiting rights based on factors outside the control of the individual, such as skin color, is discriminatory and, therefore, illegal.

Others argue that if gay marriage were allowed, then churches would be forced against their will to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. This argument holds even less weight, because even now churches are allowed to dictate the rules governing their marriage ceremonies. For example, a Catholic Church is not required by law to marry a divorced couple. Couples are required to meet certain conditions for eligibility based on the faith community’s traditions and standards. There is no reason that laws would undo the faith communities’ right to determine who is eligible to marry with the community.

Technically speaking, it seems that our current system really divides the marriage of a man and a woman into two unique entities – the “marriage,” performed and sanctioned by the church, and the “civil union,” recognized by the government. Those of us who were married in a church have participated in a religious marriage ceremony and simultaneously have been granted a particular legal status associated with the civil union. While the marriage can and should be governed by the faith community, why would the civil union not be required to comply with legal and Constitutional guidelines? Our laws are designed to maintain a separation between church and state and to promote the principle that all men are created equal. Is permitting gay marriage not in line with these philosophies?

Clearly this issue is a significant one and is taken very seriously by those on both sides of the argument. No one person or group is going to provide for its resolution. Hopefully, at the very least, the two sides can recognize in each other the desire to promote healthy relationships and the wish to ultimately strengthen the family unit, regardless of how one may define the specific terms.

Monday, May 18, 2009

President Obama at Notre Dame

President Barack Obama gave the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame yesterday. His comments were very thoughtful and insightful - I've shared some quotes below:

"When we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."

"Remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness."

"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth."

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Waste Not! Expo

With apologies to those of you who have already received notice of this event from others, I'm very pleased to share information about an excellent (and important) event scheduled for NEXT SATURDAY, in Frederick.
Please consider attending the WASTE NOT! EXPO on Saturday, March 28th. at 9:30 am.
I won't include a lot of information here, but will encourage you to click here:
http://wastenotfrederick.org/
...and visit the attractive website set up to offer all the information you'd need or want to know about the Expo, including the schedule, speakers, vendors, sponsors, directions, contact information and other bits (the Mission Statement, press release, etc.)
This is a well planned event, with a variety of activities and information, and an outstanding slate of speakers, all packed into just a few hours on an early spring day.
Oh...also worth mentioning...
Childcare (with fun activities) will be provided (in the high school cafeteria) for children at least two years old.

I wouldn't miss it, and I hope to see you there!

Kai
PS: Even though it is on the website, I can't help but share here how pleased I am that the organizers of this event were able to get Eric Lombardi to attend as the Keynote Speaker. You can read a few details about Eric on the Waste Not! Expo website, but I wanted to make sure you knew that he is scheduled for 10:00 am. So...don't come late! And, if you can't stay for the entire event, consider coming for a while, catching a couple of great speakers and visiting some of the tables.
PSS: Too HOT OFF THE PRESS to be included on the attached invitation: ArrowBio© has agreed to co-sponsor the Expo, and will have a display and information about its integrated solid waste technology. ArrowBio© has been in the news recently as a possible alternative to the proposed Waste-to-Energy incinerator. For more information about the process used by ArrowBio©: http://www.arrowbio.com/