Friday, October 25, 2013


The Invective of Loss

Few things amaze me more than the willingness of the reactionary right to use guttersnipe tactics to voice displeasure when the tide of public opinion turns to moderation. The column printed in this space a few days ago was quite vitriolic and used a lot of unsupported statements disguised as logic to make its point. I have noted that since President Obama was reelected that the reactionary right has become even more rabid in its use of adjectives to describe its disgust for him very few of which actually have any bearing on his political performance. My conjecture is that since it is apparent that the voters don't agree with them they are just plain ticked off and refuse to consider that they are just out sync with the majority of the American public.

I don't think you will find too many who are satisfied with the performance of our Congress over the past few years. During the first administration of our President the opposition was content to just block any and all attempts at governing by the majority. They misused parliamentary gimmicks to create an environment that required a supermajority to pass any kind of legislation just to deny the President's party any kind of success being certain that the American people would awaken and refuse to reelect the imposter in the White House. They were wrong. They misjudged the mood of the public and didn't listen to anyone other than people who felt the same way they did. A sure recipe for electoral disaster. Now the American public has reinforced its desire to govern from the middle and the certainties of those who spew hate have been rejected.

One would surmise that would have writ the final word on the matter and reasonable people could get on with the business of governing but one would be wrong. Since the matter could not be settled to the satisfaction of the reactionary right through the electoral process it seems that it must suffice to stir the flames of bigotry and invective. To accuse the President and his advisors of being “power hungry” while trying to undo the attempt to use military might to enforce American “exceptionalism” on the world is laughable. When the Neocons marched us into Iraq to create a democratic bastion as a shining example in the Middle East that may indeed have approached the hubris afforded to another example.

I have long wondered how anyone who sees the desirability of Medicare, Social Security and Veteran's benefits can rail so vociferously against the Affordable Care Act and claim it is a craven attempt by the President to create iron fisted control over the federal government. Without going into the rationale of the ACA is it not enough that the President campaigned on universal health care, was elected, the people's representative's enacted it, it survived a Supreme Court challenge and then the President was reelected? How can anything be more indicative of and subservient to the will of the American people?

Yet, this man who will voluntarily relinquish his office in three years is out to use his cronies and zeal to demolish the United States rather than do his best to make it a more equitable society under the law. Just unfathomable. But what would such rantings from the reactionary right be without the condescending and pejorative adjectives used to describe the individual at the top of our government. Take out the “Hitlers, Himmlers, victim mentality, pencil-necked, Nazi and Gestapos” and what is left to use as a rationale for condemnation? To compare the leadership of the Congressional Democratic party with some of the most despised of war criminals who were responsible for millions of deaths is at the very least irresponsible. It is hopefully the beginning of a dying gasp from a reactionary right that has driven our politics for perhaps a dozen years now supported by the millions of dollars from insanely wealthy people who strive in secret to enforce their vision of a Malthusian state that endows the wealthy with privilege and power while the remnants of the Middle Class work their once proud hands to nubbins just to try and exist in a world that is rigged against them. Into this world came the Affordable Care Act that attempts to allow the people to have access to a glimmer of the health care that is available to the wealthy. An attempt to create iron fisted control over the economy? Oh no! It is one of the very few victories felt by the Middle Class in the past thirty years and it strengthens the concept of the Social Contract that binds the American people in an indivisible union.

Many of us who have tried to stay above the name calling and have tolerated racist and bigoted comments are reaching the limits of tolerance and are beginning to complain when confronted with such negative and demeaning remarks and this further incenses the reactionary right which is used to being able to shout down anyone who attempts an effort at reasonable discourse. For instance, the accusations of having the shutdown in the planning for months drawn from the availability of having signs posted is ludicrous.

My take is this. Take into account the results of the past two general elections. Consider the mood of the country after this last Congressional debacle and witness the disarray of the Republican party and think about what the next general election will bring. It had been contemplated that the House would increase the Republican majority but there is now some talk of the Democratic party regaining the House though that would be unlikely considering the gerrymandering and number of seats up for grabs. The GOP once gloated openly of seizing the majority in the Senate but that is quite unlikely now. And in the Presidential race, if the national polls are to be believed, the GOP is likely to be rejected again. The reactionary right needs to reconsider its tactics and goals and find a membership that can create a national narrative and toss out the bomb throwers. The American people do not need them.


Friday, October 18, 2013

Avoiding Responsibility

Saudis Reject Security Council Seat, Citing 'Double Standards' : The Two-Way : NPR

Seems the Arab countries that could make a difference are reluctant to be in a position to challenge other Arab countries on a potentially confrontational front.  They prefer to work through proxies such as the United States in order to avoid direct conflict.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Blight





At my church we have a ministry that is called Celebrate Recovery. We started it a few years ago and it has been quite successful. So much so that the dire need is becoming more widely recognized and a couple of other churches in the area have their own programs. It is designed to help those who are addicted to drugs or any other destructive behavior and we have seen quite a few lives changed and people brought back from the brink to lead useful and purposeful lives. Families have been reunited and strengthened. The CR program, as we call it, is sometimes used as a diversion for people facing jail time for violations of the law.

This is one of the major reasons that I began attending this church because it is my strongly held belief that churches must be relevant to the world in which they exist. There is a saying that goes something like this: The church is so holy it is of no earthly good.” I believe we must avoid this.

But even the court system can see that we can't imprison our way out of the epidemic of drug abuse that we are experiencing. Some people think we can just keep building prisons to house these people when we already imprison people at a higher rate than any other country in the world. We have turned prisons into a growth industry for private enterprise whose objective is to keep the beds filled and who have no interest in curbing incarceration. How much sense does that make? We have poured billions into the War on Drugs with no discernible effect. Can it be that there may be a better way to use the taxpayer's dollars to curb this blight? I believe there is.

We, as a nation, have fallen victim to the yearning for an easy answer, one that is just filled with “common sense” and plain for all to see. Everywhere I go, if I engage in conversation with a person, it is rare to find a family that has not been touched and scarred by the illegal use of drugs. It doesn't matter if they are prescription or non-prescription, the result to the user is addiction, downward mobility and, eventually, either death or incarceration. Once the downward trend begins that person ceases to be an asset to society and becomes a drain on the resources of that society. Other than the personal tragedy that is what we as a nation must be concerned with. How can we be concerned in a way that will make that person once again productive and no longer a burden?

The epidemic of drug use defies the usual prescription of deterrence through harsh sentencing. That approach only leads to increased money to useless enforcement and imprisonment. An addict cares not one whit about consequences. He is not going to say “I'm not gonna shoot that smack 'cause it will land me in prison.” He's going to say “where can I get it and how soon.” People who have never seen the deadly progression of this disease find it almost impossible to understand but more and more of us are becoming intimately acquainted with it.

Recently our state passed a new drug law that made it more difficult for illegal users to gain access to prescription drugs. It has been effective but has not resulted in fewer people using narcotics but, instead, has led to an increased use of heroin. Heroin is a street drug that is sold in varying degrees of purity and thus is more likely to be overdosed on than a prescription drug for which the purity is known. Overdose deaths from heroin are on a record pace and promise to eclipse the overdose deaths from prescription drugs. The law of unintended consequences at work. Now it is more expensive and difficult for legal users of drugs to access them and cheaper and more dangerous for the illegal user. Could it be that our whole approach to the drug problem is wrong? Could it be that, like many things, the solution is one that requires “uncommon sense” to discern?

Of course it is. We are really fond of the ten second sound byte, the meme, the short but sweet dangling of simple solutions in our faces. Get this. If if were simple it would be done by now. Even the judicial establishment is beginning to see the fallacy of ponderous imprisonment and turning to whatever other alternatives may be available. It is time for the law enforcement establishment to do the same thing. It is time for the legislative establishment to do the same thing.

It is a well known and proven fact that drug abuse goes hand in hand with poverty and lack of economic opportunity. It is far more rare for a person who has a bright future ahead of him (or her) to succumb to the siren call. Preparation for an addiction free life must begin very early in life. Parenting is critical and all too often, lacking. Education opens a world that is much more attractive than the world of addiction. Social structures in school, church or communities that provide companionship and compassion keep the person from becoming isolated and turning to drugs to ease the hurt of the loneliness. Effective social programs that take people who need help and nurture them back to productivity are a priority but one that has suffered under the vast budget cuts to social programs. If we would use the vast sums squandered on imprisonment and law enforcement we would find those social programs to be far more economically desirable.

The solutions are well known but will deprive us of our holier than thou attitude and force on us the need to peer beneath the surface. They will demand that we examine policy and not fall prey to the shiny face with the neat answer. They will require a better us. We can't continue to slough this task off to prisons and law enforcement.

My Take is that people don't like complicated solutions. They would rather live in the dream world of trite aphorisms and neat answers. Sorry.