A Complementary/Contradictory View.

Taking the Long Way by Yuval Levin | Articles | First Things





Wanda Fries posted this on Facebook and it is a remarkable treatise on a free and liberal society.  I think in this reference that both conservatives and liberals (by the usual definitions) will be able to find revelation.  It is lengthy (by today's standards) and will require some furrowing of the brow to comprehend but it will prove beneficial to anyone who takes the time to do so.



Bob

The Conversation

In New York City the assembled police force has taken to turning their backs on the Mayor when he speaks in a flagrant show of disrespect. He has tried to raise the topic of inequitable treatment of some African-Americans by the police and some perceive his attempt as a lack of support for the police everywhere. It is a hazard inherent in trying to address complicated topics where there may be fault on all sides. You may have noticed that with some people there is a great reluctance to speak on certain topics such as religion, politics, governmental policy and many others. It's because we don't know how to talk about them and we don't know how to listen about them. I want to tackle a couple of those topics in this space and I hope I can do that without feeding the monster itself.

The last several months, heck, longer than that, have brought people into the streets to voice dislike of policies that seem to be discriminatory or just plain wrong-headed. The most recent is the example of demonstrations protesting the police shootings of unarmed black men and boys and the inability of our justice system to adequately address the shootings to the satisfaction of the public. It is critical that the public be satisfied because it is from “the consent of the governed” that our government derives its just powers. So, perceptions do matter. Recently the tide turned and two police officers were murdered by a man who made references to the shootings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and who then shot himself. He was planning to kill himself anyway since he had already killed his girlfriend and decided to take a couple of cops with him. It was murder in a heartless and cold blooded way. Passions are high and public speech is trying to lead us to choose sides but we don't have to do that. There is plenty of blame to go around and the solution to the problem of justice and perception of justice does not lie in choosing sides.

Sometimes I am cautious about engaging in discussion of hot button topics because I just don't thrive on controversy. I much prefer sensible discussion and entertaining alternative viewpoints. For instance, while the murder of those police officers is deplorable it really has nothing to do with the complaints of those who are protesting what they perceive is unfavorable treatment of black males by the police. Our emotions are charged. We immediately go into fight mode to defend our perspective but that is not where the answers ultimately lie. The answers lie in a transparent, introspective look at what we ask our first responders such as police to do. Theirs is a difficult task, one that requires split second decision making and it must be acknowledged that mistakes will be made. Our task is to find agreement on how to minimize those mistakes and assure the public that every effort at justice and caution was observed. In each of these cases that has not been done. The system has rendered judgment in some cases but it has not been a transparent one and not one that is perceived as just.

Military conflict offers another potential conflict. Much has been made of the soldiers returning from Vietnam to less than respectful treatment and there is a national resolve to not allow that to happen again. That is admirable but that does not mean that it is necessary to endorse the military conflict into which our nation is thrust. It is quite possible to disagree with the militaristic posture and still be a patriot. Many good citizens may not accept the premise that is given to justify our use of military force but that does not diminish respect for those who act at their nation's request. So, the discussion should not be about whether we support our troops or not. It should be about whether or not our government exercised due diligence in asking those men and women to risk their lives so that we can continue to live without being subjected to danger or sacrifice. Did we exhaust all other alternatives? Is the cause so serious so as to require human lives be sacrificed or can we accept some other solution? I have to say that as long as the people of the United States allow their elected representatives to make war then we should be willing to accept responsibility and sacrifice accordingly. Those men and women that serve do so at our request and behest, like it or not. So, it is our profound responsibility to enter debate about policy and elect representatives that will represent our wishes.

In the case of our police things are a little different. They are not military but are civilians just like the rest of us. Their motto is To Protect and To Serve but that can't be done if they are allowed to use violence without being called to be responsible for their actions. That does not represent a lack of appreciation or respect for police, it shows the the people are taking responsibility for what we ask them to do on our behalf. If we see things that we feel are unjustified then, again, it is time for debate and course correction. That is just the way democracy works. Blind acceptance is a characteristic of a totalitarian state.

Just as we are asked to be supportive of police and the military it is also important that the people be respected when they speak out in protest. Yes, we can expect protest to be lawful but sometimes it need not be peaceful. Being lawful and peaceful are not the same thing. When the civil rights marchers approached the bridge at Selma it was anything but peaceful but it was lawful, at least until the police began beating them. Sometimes the only way the people can be heard is by joining together and speaking as one. It is an unfortunate fact that some will take advantage of the disorder by committing illegal acts and that should be met with enforcement action. But the people must be allowed to speak peacefully even if it is disorderly.

Those policemen that turn their backs on Mayor DeBlasio should not show such disrespect but should acknowledge that his responsibility is to all the people and not just the police. It should be remembered that the American Revolution was fomented by people meeting in taverns and engaging in acts of violence. My Take is that we should learn the difference between disrespect and disagreement.

What Changed

Merry Christmas, y'all. In the economic news are reports that the stock market has topped 18,000. You may recall that it was at 12,000 when the crash occurred and dropped to 6,000. Also, the past quarter the rate of GDP growth was an annualized 5%, largest in years.

I was reminiscing the other day thinking about those Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines of the 1960s where there were predictions of flying cars and so much leisure time we would enter another Age of Enlightenment. What on earth happened? I had to wonder how those prognosticators expected people to make a living and buy groceries and those flying cars. Now it seems that it wasn't the science that was so far off but, rather, the economics. Personally, I'm driving a 13 year old pickup truck and it still has wheels that touch the road. Until the City of Somerset began introducing some competition into the local gasoline market I wasn't certain that those wheels would even roll.

So, what was it that gave those writers any reason to assume that having all that leisure time would result in having enough money to live on? Well, for starters, from the time of the Great Depression forward it had always been assumed that the people in general would share in any increase in wealth proportionally since the axiom was “a rising tide lifts all boats”. Since 1980 the axiom has been revised to read “a rising tide lifts all yachts.” Since 1980 the productivity of the American worker has increased exponentially but he or she has not enjoyed the wealth associated with such production. In the mid 1960s the tax rate for a family earning $60,000 per year (which was a lot of money then) was in excess of 50%. The top tax rate for those making over $250,000 was right at 90%. In those times the United States was the economic engine of the world and infrastructure such as the interstate highway system was being built which resulted in millions of good paying jobs. Companies had their assembly lines running full blast to fill orders from the expanding middle class that had enough money to purchase their products and that also meant jobs that could support growing families and improved educational aspirations. The future was bright and filled with hope and expectation. It seemed that America had found the Holy Grail then it slipped from our grasp.

Well, it didn't slip from the grasp of every one but only from the great middle class that was the envy of the world. It didn't all slip away overnight. It took 10 years before American corporations concluded that the middle class didn't have enough purchasing clout any more. There just wasn't enough money there to support a business model that was changing to a more demanding model that desired ever increasing markets and those markets were going to be the rest of the world. Only problem was that to sell to the rest of the world the costs of production had to come down and come down they did. Production was shipped overseas and the jobs that supported the middle class went with it. The top tax rate had fallen to 50% and the $60K rate had dropped to 40%. Bridges began to rust and decay, no new interstate projects were being built and domestic steel production had cratered. The neo-conservative elements that had fought the New Deal, Social Security and Medicare were ascendant and they told us that lower tax rates would encourage those who garnered the wealth to reinvest in America and jobs would come and prosperity would reign. Trickle down. It did not happen. It trickled up then it began to rise to the top like a helium balloon.

Now the top tax rate is 33% and the $60K rate is about 28%. Just look at whose rate has come down the most. What about that leisure time? Now millions are working two or three jobs just to keep the lights on and who on earth even thinks about a flying car? Services that were provided by governments are now either eliminated or have been outsourced to private companies with a license to steal from those too poor to notice. The new bridges that are needed over the Ohio River are going to cost a lot of money that government does not have so the powers that be are considering allowing private corporations to build them and then charge motorists for using them. In some places highways are undergoing the same considerations. Let me ask you this. If we pay for them with taxes or with tolls what is the difference other than a portion of the money getting diverted to private pockets?

You've heard it before. Income inequality is strangling our people. We no longer have money to maintain bridges and roads or to pay decent salaries. We have to ask ourselves why. What changed?

Last week there was a news blurb that it had been discovered that Prevailing Wage laws were costing the taxpayer money and that we need to do away with them so companies can use the cheapest labor they can find to do state and federal projects. I have been fortunate enough to work on a few prevailing wage jobs and I can tell you that I never felt I was cheating the taxpayer. What I did feel was that for once I was making enough money to buy a car or perhaps a new automatic washer. It seems that is just the kind of thing we want to happen. I have learned from life experience that when you search for the cheapest job you can find that is usually what you will get. My outlook now is that I want people to make money. When they make money then they buy stuff. It seems plain as the nose on your face but there are those who believe that their life's work is to keep the middle class from becoming prosperous once again. Warren County government is now trying to pass a “right to work” law which is nothing more than a “right to work for as little as you can” law.

Take what you will from this but as “Deep Throat” once advised, “follow the money.” My Take is that we should look at what worked before and maybe try that again.

Who Can Help?

It is disheartening, the ongoing struggle of our daughter to receive care for a chronic, long-term back problem. Everyone has their own cross to bear but you may recall that a few months ago Yvonne was to have had a much needed surgery to relieve nerve compression in her cervical spine. She had been jumping through hoops with Coventry (does not) Cares and was within days of the surgery when they demanded another hoop and her doctor quit accepting Coventry Cares (not) because they would not allow him to treat his patients. She was once again thrown into the morass of medical limbo to find another doctor who would treat her. She has debilitating pain each and every day. It never ends but the regulations that the state and DEA have foisted upon us have doctors afraid to treat pain. She finally got another appointment for today. The doctor told her that since she has a neural stimulator she should not need further treatment and that he was not going to accept Coventry Cares (no it doesn't) any longer. This is how our state Medicaid program is run. Kentucky contracted with private companies to deliver health care in order to save money. How can you hire a middle man and save money? No-Brainer. By denying care and people suffer. Yvonne has jumped through these hoops so long that hope is ephemeral, help is available but inaccessible because of the bottom line of Coventry Cares (nope). I just needed to tell you about this, you may not be aware if you are not a chronic pain sufferer but you need to know. But on a more positive note, if you are aware of any doctors that can either manage chronic pain or who could even do the surgery and who is not scared to death of the DEA and frustrated with Coventry Cares (fiction) please let me know. We would like to give up but we can't.

NYTimes.com

For Russia, Ruble Crisis Is Testing Its Resources - NYTimes.com

 is the President's strategy working?



 Fracking Battle Begins

What is the down side for New York?



On to Cuba

Long awaited rapprochement brings glee and anger



Counter-intuitive or Just Wrong

what if the conservative ideology on government support is just not right?

Who Will Speak For You

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

The instances that we see in the news of late are hauntingly reminiscent of this allegory. What we are seeing now are predominantly instances of what may be called a discriminatory response to actions affecting the African-American community or other minorities of color. It just can't be ignored that these instances of alleged police misconduct are not happening to white offenders at the same rate. Is it because these minorities are more likely to commit acts of violence against people or property or is there something in our perception of these offenders that makes them seem more of a threat? If that is the case, is this not a time for us to examine our souls to seek out sin and cast it out?

Sometimes it seems that we never get better. Sometimes it seems that our ugliness only goes to ground for a time but returns at a time when we think we have put that behind us. Look within, try to cast a wide view rather than a personal one. Ask why it seems that violence is perpetrated on a select few. These are questions that dog our souls and define who and what we are as humans, Americans and as Christians. Shouldn't we first entertain the thought that something may be wrong rather than just dismiss those protestors as rabble who are only seeking to steal from others? Shouldn't we consider that even though there are some who take advantage of the disorder by looting there still may be something of merit to be heard? Is that not what we would want for ourselves?

These men and boys that we have seen killed, shot down by those empowered to protect and serve, didn't all present themselves in the best light. We know that one was likely selling untaxed cigarettes. The other had just robbed a grocery and was belligerent but was it not possible to have dealt with these offenses without killing? Why did an officer have to apply a lethal, illegal maneuver to bring the man down? Why did the officer have to risk a confrontation without backup in the streets of Ferguson? Why was the boy shot dead within seconds of the police arriving? Why was the boy with the airsoft pistol deserving of death? Would if not have been better to disengage and assess the situation rather than shoot? And here is the kicker. Would those men and boys be dead if they had been white? Whether or not you think this is a valid question it is still one that must be asked because significant numbers of our people think it is a valid question.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is not a law enforcement problem, this is a socioeconomic problem that was revealed by these deaths. Is the response to alleged offenses of people of color perceived to be discriminatory? If it is then we must change course. This is not the first time we have seen this, not even the first time in my life. I saw it as a teenager in the civil rights protests. I saw it as a college student with the anti-war protests and here it is again, rearing its ugly head.

What if it was you or your loved ones? Would you want someone to speak up? A couple of years ago we had a local case of a police office using unwarranted force repeatedly. He was allowed to continue much longer that he should have by taking advantage of the solidarity of his fellow officers but he was finally brought to account for his actions. Police are in a difficult job, no one disputes that but they must make exceptional decisions in their application of force and must be held to account when they err. Restraint must be the rule rather than the exception. Like others, they are servants of the people, not our rulers.

My Take is this. We must be as diligent about the rights and protection of others as we are of our own. If we do not, who will speak for us when they come for us?

Welfare for the Rich and an Empty Bowl for the Rest

The Story Behind the Story of Those Huge Corporate Tax Cuts | BillMoyers.com

The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room

The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room: A growing number of U.S. experts say that feigning ignorance about Israel’s nuclear arsenal creates more trouble than it averts.

Ben Stein is Aggreived.

 

 Not often do I find some commentary so incisive, humorous and literary that I want to share it.  These comments speak volumes about the complaints of the well-to-do about how they are being taxed to pay for things they don't want and how that taxation is keeping them from creating jobs.  I totally love it.  Thank you, Wanda.

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wanda Haynes Fries shared Carl Paladino's photo.

1 hr · Edited ·

Meanwhile, think of all those shut-ins who have to pay for roads and all those childless people who have to pay us teachers (police officers are different because they have guns and they protect us from people who want to take our stuff). Shouldn't people who have children have to be responsible for educating them? Why should I have to care one way or another whether some poor child born to a drug addict or born of grape pickers or a hotel maid learns to read, or for that matter, gets a vaccination? Poor Ben Stein. So rich and clever and yet so stingy and easily annoyed. Imagine what would happen if he smiled every now and then. Do you think it might make him feel better about this horrible, third world country he has to live in, where your average comedian is so burdened by taxes and hordes of the unwashed, he can barely get ahead? Why should he even keep working? He might as well become like the Big Liebowski, unwashed and stumbling to the grocery store in his bathrobe.
Okay, sometimes liberals are so sincere and so naive, they make your teeth hurt. But at least they're usually trying to create utopia. Dumb, but it's at least sweet. But, Jesus (and I mean that as a prayer and not a curse word), I get so tired of rich white people whining that they're going to starve to death any minute and barely can stand to go to work anymore because they just can't make any money because the socialist president thinks the maid ought to be able to go the doctor or that they're really worried that it's Hispanic immigrants who have taken all the good manufacturing jobs. One thing we did learn from Ferguson for sure, though, is that liberals and conservatives both hate the government; they just hate different parts of it.
 
The difference is, that conservatives at least love the flag, especially at ballgames. And they love the military, because they are sure that the military will so ditch the commander in chief and storm the White House with Ted Nugent carrying the colors when the time comes for armed rebellion, so they won't have to shoot any National Guard troops in the coup. Oh, and they like to complain about high taxes and neglected veterans in the same breath because they are sure that it is educating Hispanic children--and not letting Mitch McConnell tax shelter his wife's inherited money that has so strapped the VA. I mean, it does add up, all those Social Security payments to widows and orphans. And it's true that even if Mitch had to pay more taxes or the CEO of KCTCS made less money, it still would only be a drop in the bucket. But be sure to post that bit about how the Congress shouldn't get all their great retirement, but live on Social Security because they totally read Facebook. Oh, and we did know, didn't we, that we don't have a direct vote on Congress's paychecks? So, like, we might have to vote in some different guys, and we might have to term limit them by voting in ALL the elections, not just the ones where we get a holiday? Vote? Oops! Look! Look! Immigrants! Nancy Pelosi is coming to get your guns!
Anyway, Mitch McConnell explained what the problem is, and it is certainly not income inequality or laying off teachers or NASA engineers, leaving them free to seek employment in the private sector, which has the really good jobs, like barrista and sales associate. Liberals should never suggest that rich people should love their country and forgo making gazillions by relocating rather than keeping the jobs here and paying good wages and making only zillions. Mitch McConnell was really irritated about that in the last election. And he really wanted to let the Koch brothers make some dough on that pipeline and screw the aquifer that supplies water to the west or that Obama's administration has really lowered our imports of foreign oil. Goodness knows, the Democrats aren't going to point it out. They're too busy pointing out that they love Big Oil! They love Big Coal! They hate the EPA! They're Clinton democrats, from back when the treasury still had money in it and before George Bush decided to send us our money back. By the way, does anybody remember what you did with those two checks?
I think when children are two years old, their parents should NEVER force them to share their toys. And for heaven's sake, don't buy them those bracelets that ask, "What would Jesus do?" All that stuff about "giving away all you have," and "if a man needs you to walk a mile with him, walk, two, or one coat, give him two." You better keep that coat. What if your coat gets a hole in it, and anyway, why doesn't he have his own coat, and why is he hungry? And what was that guy doing anyway when the Good Samaritan picked him up and kept paying his medical bills and checking on him? Was he in drag? Did he have on a hoodie? Was he in the right neighborhood? I mean Jesus was okay then, but he would so not make it in the modern world.
Give the poor advice, that's what you do. Tell him to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Tell her to get three jobs at whatever wage the employer wants to pay, because she can work 70 hours if she wants to, 90 if she can stay away awake, she can get as many jobs as he wants because this is a free country. As for who will watch her children, children are a luxury commodity. If you can't afford them, don't have them. As for the immigrant and the stranger, tell him to go home and fix his own damn country because he is not our problem.
That's how you begin to build a liberal, you know. Telling them all that nonsense about sharing and including everybody. Some of them grow up thinking we mean it.