Morning Fog

Terrorism And Religion - Are They The Same Thing?

No reasonable person could look back on human history over the past two millennia and not think that an awful lot of murder and mayhem has been committed in the name of religion.  Violence has been done, not just in conflicts between two different religions over basic tenets of faith, but in matters so petty as how many fingers to use when crossing oneself.

The problem with religion, as I see it, is that it tends toward absolutism.  If you take the guiding principles of your life on faith, reason doesn't enter in, and that doesn't leave much room for shades of gray -- at least not in many people's minds.  When you're right, you're right.  Right?  So far too often, despite the fact that all major religions teach tolerance, the actual result is the opposite:  intolerance.

And thus we come to terrorism, or at least the main brand of terrorism prevailing in the world today -- that of Muslims who get a little too wrapped up in the "rightness" of their faith and aren't willing to tolerate the faiths of others.  Hence the case of "Jihad Jane," whose target allegedly was the Swedish artist Lars Vilks; his offense was to depict Allah with the body of a dog.  Surely an offense to Muslims, especially conservative ones -- but cause for murder? Get a life, guys and gals. Get some tolerance.

Not that the shoe isn't often on the other foot, as we can see when upstanding (?) politicians of the Virginia state assembly object to a Muslim imam's giving the opening prayer as that body opens its session next week.  It isn't violence yet; it isn't terrorism; but it's the same idea.

A Good Spanking

 

Sometimes people do such strange things -- so weird, or inexplicable, or stupid, or unprofessional, or petty, that it just seems as if the best thing to do is to give them a good old-fashioned (all you under-fifty moms who don't believe in corporal punishment cover your eyes and ears now) spanking.  And it must be a full moon, or the madness-inducing weather patterns of El Nino, that brings such a bumper crop of so-o-o-o many cases this week:

• It almost goes without saying that the entire Republican Party needs a swat on the behind because of their collective refusal to participate in government; I won't belabor that further, but Tom Toles's political cartoon today encapsulates the problem.
• One Republican in particular deserves a dozen or so extra whacks: Senator Bunning of Kentucky, who's rather irrationally holding up a jobs bill that could help lots of people. But then, Kentucky has shown they can really pick some gems in the Senatorial category. (This just in: a deal in this odd case has reportedly been reached).
• Get out the hairbrush also for Rep. Charles Rangel, the Democrat who has had, to put it mildly, some ethics problems. Not just Republicans should be calling for his resignation or prosecution.
• Ditto for DC's former Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry, a serial scalawag whose actions over decades have ranged from infractions to conflict of interest to just plain illegal. The latest: he is said to have obtained a city job for a girlfriend and taken payments from her for doing so. The breaking news is that the DC Council censured him and removed him from office.
• Then we have Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron exec who is now challenging the "constitutionality" of his conviction on a hair-splitting issue (since the basis for the challenge seems so razor-thin, let's use a razor strop on him. Bring along at least five more strops for the majority of "supreme" court justices who in taking on this case would seem bent on ensuring the Court won't have a shred of repute left.

• Last but not least, there are the Hawaiian tour guides who are complaining that the Obama family's vacationing in the state (and the concomitant security measures banning aircraft overflights in some areas) hurt them financially.  They want remuneration ...from someone!  Shouldn't they be proud there's a President who calls Hawaii home?  Haven't other locales put up with such inconvenience? 

  

Sometimes people do such strange things -- so weird, or inexplicable, or stupid, or unprofessional, or petty, that it just seems as if the best thing to do is to give them a good old-fashioned (all you under-fifty moms who don't believe in corporal punishment cover your eyes and ears now) spanking.  And it must be a full moon, or the madness-inducing weather patterns of El Nino, that brings such a bumper crop of so-o-o-o many cases this week:

• It almost goes without saying that the entire Republican Party needs a swat on the behind because of their collective refusal to participate in government; I won't belabor that further, but Tom Toles's political cartoon today encapsulates the problem.
• One Republican in particular deserves a dozen or so extra whacks: Senator Bunning of Kentucky, who's rather irrationally holding up a jobs bill that could help lots of people. But then, Kentucky has shown they can really pick some gems in the Senatorial category. (This just in: a deal in this odd case has reportedly been reached).
• Get out the hairbrush also for Rep. Charles Rangel, the Democrat who has had, to put it mildly, some ethics problems. Not just Republicans should be calling for his resignation or prosecution.
• Ditto for DC's former Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry, a serial scalawag whose actions over decades have ranged from infractions to conflict of interest to just plain illegal. The latest: he is said to have obtained a city job for a girlfriend and taken payments from her for doing so. The breaking news is that the DC Council censured him and removed him from office.
• Then we have Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron exec who is now challenging the "constitutionality" of his conviction on a hair-splitting issue (since the basis for the challenge seems so razor-thin, let's use a razor strop on him. Bring along at least five more strops for the majority of "supreme" court justices who in taking on this case would seem bent on ensuring the Court won't have a shred of repute left.

• Last but not least, there are the Hawaiian tour guides who are complaining that the Obama family's vacationing in the state (and the concomitant security measures banning aircraft overflights in some areas) hurt them financially.  They want remuneration ...from someone!  Shouldn't they be proud there's a President who calls Hawaii home?  Haven't other locales put up with such inconvenience? 

  

Defending Toyota

Amid all the furor over Toyota recalls and appearances by the company's top executives at Congressional hearings, there is a subtext being heard here and there to the effect that the U.S. government, the media, and even ordinary drivers are unfairly "picking on" Toyota, exaggerating its difficulties.  The sub-subtext is that Congress is motivated to persecute poor little Toyota because the USG is a part owner of GM and Chrysler!

That's a pretty scurrilous accusation.  Toyota dealers have been riding high for at least three decades, with their cars flying off the lots, often at full list prices for the most popular models, so they've never experienced a down market. We can understand, but not forgive, their frustration and their paranoia in lashing out at Congress.  The latest entry in this war of words, however, is someone who should - quite certainly does - know better, namely Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi 

The suggestion that the USG would pursue a vendetta against Toyota because of its ownership stake in GM is both offensive and unfounded.  Barbour asks if the government inquiry can be seen as unbiased; the Governor from Toyota might ask if his defense of the company can be seen as unbiased.  After all, as Barbour himself says, he pulled out many stops to get Toyota to build a plant in Mississippi.  The motive of his unmitigatedly self-serving promotional article is quite clear.  Barbour is sometimes mentioned as a Presidential candidate; this little foray into the world of opinion-making ought to pretty well dampen that kind of speculation.

Does Congress too often rush to public hearings whenever there are political points to be made?  Absolutely.  But from any reasonable perspective, the treatment Toyota is getting is perfectly normal, and is fully commensurate with the kinds of treatment other companies have received.  It's precisely because Toyota has so long been accepted as a paragon that the increasingly damaging chain of recall and cover-up has become such a hot news item.

Virginia Republicans Do It Regressively

Virginia Republicans, buoyant from the victory of Republican Bob McDonnell in the election for governor last November, seem to have determined that it's time to get out their horses and buggy whips and transport the state and its people back into the nineteenth century (from which we only recently emerged).   The new Governor has declared himself in favor, meaning that his campaign claims of political moderation, and his promises to focus on jobs and economy rather than partisan political issues, have not survived even until his inauguration. 

Virginia's Republicans say they are gearing up legislation to challenge the applicability of federal law in the state.  They're not the only ones - there are some reports of legislators in New Jersey and Nevada thinking of challenging the federal health insurance mandate, for example.  But to my knowledge only the backwoods rubes of the GOP's Virginia branch are discussing at least three such born-to-lose challenges by:

• Making it illegal to require people to buy health insurance.
• "Declaring" that the U.S. can't regulate commerce in items produced and sold solely within Virginia.
• Stating that guns made and sold within Virginia can't be subject to federal regulation.

Well, of course, some of this is just loose talk intended to make Democrats nervous; it's possible some, or none, of these initiatives will see the light of day, especially if Republicans consider how ridiculous they look.  Nor is there much probability these initiatives, if passed, would survive a court challenge.  After all, there's little or no legal ground for challenging the health insurance mandate; I'm pretty sure there are some precedents (e.g., cigarettes) where regulation of nominally-intrastate trade has been deemed constitutional for health or other reasons.

Nonetheless, I find fascinating the strong parallel between this discussion and similar ones back in the days of segregation.  In both cases, we have politicians of the south denying the right of the federal government to apply its definition of federal laws - and even the Bill of Rights -  to them.  In the old days, it was Democrats (mainly); now the Republicans have taken up the same tattered banner of states' rights behind which to rally the troops of the regressive cause.  In hypocritically trying to capitalize on the widespread unease and anger their own party's last President unleashed, Virginia Republicans - who meet in Richmond, the proud capital of the Old South - seem prepared to waste time and energy on tilting at windmills, rather than dealing with the state's pressing problems of budget, employment, and transportation.

This isn't new, but it's an increasingly rear-guard action.  The GOP has taken the wrong lesson from eight years of Democratic success in the state. 

In The Name of Religion

Today's media offerings include several examples in which a religion's teachings get into the wrong hands and become distorted into weapons to be employed against other religiions.

First, the case of five young American Muslims whose religious fervor seems to have lured them into a quest to become terrorists.  I suppose we'll see more of this kind of thing.  It's only natural when a religion defines itself, as Islamic extremism seems to these days, in terms of its opposition to another religion. 

(A Side Thought:  Maybe we should make sense of fervent proselytism in a different way. I've always considered that religions may have more or less similar life cycles as corporations and forests do.  If so, perhaps they all go through a stage of adolescent hyperenthusiasm that makes their adherents want to go out and smack other people around until they adhere, too.  Islam arose in the 7th century AD by our calendar, as I recall.  So about now, it's roughly 1400 years old - the age at which Christianity was wrapping up its Crusade stage, [by some strange coincidence Crusaders also believed it was cool, and likely salvational, to die for their religion].  The Islamic version of the Spanish Inquisition is still about 50 years off, so there may be worse to come.)

Then, I read about Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat who, according to reliable reports, believes he can't support current efforts at health reform if they don't include strong anti-abortion language.  It's unclear for now whether he wants language that would go so far over the top as to forbid people from using their own money for them.  Nelson is quoted as saying that "there isn't any real way to move away from your principle on abortion." This is the Senator wishing to impose the dictates of his religion on those whose beliefs are different.  

(Another Aside: It's said Nelson has a conservative electorate at home that would boot him out if he acted otherwise.  So, the Senator is the tip of an iceberg of fervent advocates of forced conversion, which only reinforces my point.  Those with rigid religious agendas ought to keep out of politics, where their duty (notwithstanding the aberrant example of George W. Bush) is to represent all those who elected them, and to reach compromises to that end. 

Finally, the Courthouse in Leesburg, Virginia:  This is just the latest of those skirmishes over religious displays on public property.  Here, local authorities initially decided not to allow any religious displays; some citizens protested; the resulting decision is to allow space for as many as ten different displays by different groups. 

(The Last Aside: It's not clear to me whether all those will have to be Christian, or Christmas-related.  After all, there's Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah, too.  Might Muslims be able to put up something even if there's nothing on their calendar right now?  What kind of status do Wiccans get?  What would an atheist display consist of?   Will this multiple display turn out to be a garish eyesore, or just an eyesore? Interesting questions all, but my admittedly secular view is that government space shouldn't be used for any religious displays; crêches and the like can, and should, appear on church lawns.  I personally would find a tree without religious imagery acceptable at a courthouse, because after all, the old pre-Christian decorated tree has been adopted by almost all Americans as a symbol of the onset of winter and/or the start of a new year; it's no longer totally, or even principally, religious in meaning.  But I understand others may not see it that way so fine, let's omit it.) 

The Leesburg Courthouse Affair is just plain silly, but the first two reports have serious consequences.  Senator Nelson may see his own case as very different from that of the Muslim students, yet fundamentally they are similar and equally flawed.  But let's keep in mind that in most religions, the vast majority of believers do not have an inflict-it-on-others mentality. and that fact, plus the trend toward increasing ecumenism, are sources of hope. 

A Positive News Day

A theme stood out as I read today's news.  Unexpectedly, on this cold, blustery day for much of the nation, today's reporting was united by an underlying note of optimism, a flurry of encouraging signs that things are developing in a positive direction.  Consider, for example:

Obama struck just the right note in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize - humility, but also the obvious point that in the real world, peace can't be had without war, or the threat of war.  No reasonable person, whether detractor or defender, should have cause to be dissatisfied with his speech .

The media are making big news of a study that suggests Americans often accept the precepts of more than one religion.  Too often, a formal religion is a straightjacket that encourages bigotry, hatred, and intolerance of other beliefs (even when tolerance is supposedly a fundamental precept).  To me, this Pew survey showing Americans embracing multiple religions suggests a breakdown of that sort of barrier.  Religious dogma means less, not more, to Americans, and that's positive.  As several of those interviewed said, people don't necessarily accept that there's only one way - and that indicates respect for other ways.

Republicans are continuing to resist dealing with the country's problems by sticking their heads in the sand.  Today's news brings evidence that the GOP is earning the nickname I've assigned them in this blog (Geezers Obstructing Progress) -- they're against improved health care, if it means insurance or drug companies may lose a dime; they're against sound financial management and consumer protections unless that can be done without regulations that banks and investment companies don't like; they bitterly oppose efforts to deal with climate and environmental issues if oil companies, factories, and utilities might have to modify their current operating procedures a whit.  Is there any doubt about whose interests the GOP really works for?  But this, too, is encouraging to me because I believe this approach is political suicide and will lead to a change of direction sooner rather than later. 

In addition, extreme conservatives are talking about using "tea-party" politics to challenge both the established parties and bring their own candidates to elected office.  I say, power to them, because I don't think they'll succeed; instead, they'll push many Republican politicians back toward the center -- which could get us back to a better-functioning, more bipartisan legislative effort than we now have.  Or, if Republicans and conservatives choose to play the more-conservative-than-thou game, they'll enlarge the Democratic majority -- that won't be a bipartisan outcome, but at least it will be one in which some of the people's business can get done.

Even on the Second Amendment we had positive news today.  This survey suggests that the NRA leadership, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leadership, is out of touch with its members.  It's always puzzled me that the NRA opposes even the most transparently reasonable efforts to reduce the mayhem produced by our gun culture.  If in fact many NRA members themselves believe it's rational to keep guns away from terrorists and criminals, for example, then there is hope for progress.  Maybe they'll toss out the rock-ribbed reactionaries at the top.

The 3:30 AM Call

I'm publishing this post at 3:30 a.m.  At this very hour, exactly two days ago, I was getting up to grab a quick breakfast, have a shower and a shave, brush the ol' pearly whites, dress (mustn't forget that!) and get to the polls by 5:00 a.m.  I had signed up to be an election official for Virginia's off-year gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

Before I had this experience, I hadn't thought much about everything that goes into making our system of free elections possible.  It's worth taking a moment to appreciate.  Things may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I think my experience is fairly typical. 

First, a look at the typical "election official's" day.  Your hours are from 5:00 a.m. to whenever votes are tallied and equipment put away, ideally by 9:00 p.m. -- but later, maybe much later, if there are any problems.  Bring food and water for the day because you can't leave the premises except for short breaks on site; and wear comfortable shoes because you'll be on your feet for at least 10 or 12 of the next 16 hours.  For your trouble, you'll be paid $150 for the day. 

Except for the standing, the work isn't physically demanding but every step of the process is swathed in detailed directions that need to be followed precisely, from set-up (e.g. opening/connecting/zeroing the voting machines), through checking in voters (e.g., exactness of names, addresses, and sometimes birthdates, is key) to casting the ballot (e.g., how to assist a voter who isn't clear on how the voting machines work), and after the polls close (e.g., checks and doublechecks of the machine tallies, and a complex multi-level reporting system).  The instruction packet for poll workers is 120 pages.  A lot of that deals with situations that you hope won't occur, and most exceptions are handled by the precinct chief, but still... 

For your 16 hour day you'll be paid $150 (pre-tax).  Chiefs have more work to do; they may come the day before to post signs, they hand-carry some of the equipment, they handle all the problem cases, they're responsible for the count, the double-checking, and the endless paperwork needed to close the polls and tally results; and they take the results to the county election board after everybody else goes home.  (They get $25 more.) 

So, why do people volunteer to do it?  I don't think it's the pay.  Luckily, we seem to have enough people willing to spare a long day of their time to make the mechanics of our election process run smoothly.  I would recommend that everyone who can spare the time should sign up to work the polls at least once.  But if you can't, here are three little thoughts I would share:

Appreciate your poll workers.  Not me, I'm a novice.  But many of the people I worked with have been doing this for years.  They're the ones answering the 3:30 a.m. call at the grass roots level to preserve our democratic system.  (In fact, several voters did thank me for my role.) 

Recognize how expensive it is to hold an election.  We had 11 "election officials" for our small precinct, just about enough to handle the constant flow of voters we got.  More would be needed for larger districts.  Five voting machines, three notebook computers containing the county voter registration rolls, signage, paper ballots, miscellaneous equipment, the costs of delivering the equipment to each polling place and picking it up again -- all this replicated in hundreds of precincts.  Add in the personnel and equipment infrastructure required at the county and state levels, and various other costs, and you've got a considerable expenditure for just one state election.

Feel confident that our elections are fair and secure.  With the many controls and checks involved, the review and signing of results by all poll personnel including our ordinary citizen-officials, the decentralization of the process (each voting machine keeps its own tally), and many other safeguards, I think we can rest assured that the electoral process is about as tamper-proof as we can make it (though certainly improvements may come along in future).    

The Health Insurance Companies' Cost Study - A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

It seems the health insurance industry, always looking out for "the people's" interests (as long as the "people" involved are themselves), has suddenly discovered that pending health reform legislation would (gasp!) raise insurance costs.   They're really sorry to deliver this news (they were so much in favor of reforms up to now) but...

Scary, right?  Well, of course it's meant to be.  It's more fear-mongering (not to mention deceptions, half-truths, and out-and-out lies) from the folks who are your good friends until you actually have an illness. 

Does anyone really believe that the companies are concerned about our pocketbooks?  Or that they're really against higher prices for insurance?  Or that this is an unbiased study of future costs?  I certainly don't.  The timing of the whole thing makes it evident that the goal is political, i.e., to try to derail reforms entirely, so that the very profitable upward spiral of costs can continue, unabated by any concerns of fairness, or limits that Congress might introduce.  

Incidentally, does anyone recall back in October 2004, when George W. Bush was running for reelection, that Osama Bin Laden produced a videotape (his first in several months) threatening more terrorist attacks on the U.S.?  Bin Laden knew what he was doing; he wanted Bush reelected because Bush policies were playing into his hands, radicalizing increasing numbers of young Muslims, and putting U.S. troops in harm's way, where daily reports of their casualties could help weaken American resolve.  The insurance companies have taken a page from Bin Laden's book, promising terror in hopes of stampeding public opinion in the direction they favor.

Of course prices of insurance are going to go up; the companies have been planning it and looking forward to it for months.  I've never had the least doubt that in between the passage of any reform legislation and the drop-dead date for its implementation, we'd see huge price increases levied by the companies.  (Incidentally, one thing Congress ought to fix is the ridiculously long lead time for completing reforms; the deadline should not be years, but months away, to minimize gouging and to thwart attempts to undo the legislation.)

In fact, many companies have already preemptively raised rates, anticipating that current profit margins will be more difficult to achieve once they're unable to just toss their sick clients out in the street on trumped-up "preexisting conditions."  And they've done so while urging their well-paid stalking horses (Congressional conservatives) to oppose the very kinds of changes that would bring costs down (e.g., a truly universal mandate for coverage). Life insurance companies providing health-related long-term-care policies have also announced 10-12% rate increases for next year, by the way.

None of this is the least bit surprising.  The surprise, if we voters are wise, will be for the insurance companies; their little cost study may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No, I don't mean that prices will go up, because that's a given as long as we continue to allow for-profit companies to set rates at will.  I'm referring, instead, to the likelihood this continuing effort to derail serious reform, the conscious choice on the companies' part to try to kill it rather than helping to bring it about, will create a groundswell for what is really needed:  a public option, strong government price control, and ultimately, a non-profit based health insurance system for most types of care. 

That's what the insurance companies have said they absolutely don't want (and we can understand why!).  By failing to do their part in bringing about more moderate change, however, they will (not may) help to bring about exactly what they say they oppose.  Not in this round, possibly; but eventually, the failings of our health care and health insurance system will be so evident, and the pressures for change so urgent and intense, that insurance companies won't be given the opportunity to be involved.  It seems short-sighted, but modern American big business suffers from terminal short-sightedness. 

Getting Cross Over A Cross

Those sons-of-guns on the Supreme Court seem to have consciously waded into a number of more-controversial-than-usual issues for the coming term, going on a tear through the Constitutional Amendments, one by one.  Regarding the First Amendment, the vehicle is the fight over the cross erected in the Mojave Desert 75 years ago to commemorate veterans of WWI.  Because it stands now on "federal" land (a nature preserve), its presence has been challenged by the ACLU and others.

I'm not a deeply religious person (OK, to be honest, I'm not even a shallowly religious person), I am fully in favor of separation of church and state.  Yet I've never been particularly offended by crosses in the desert (public land or not), or on gravesites; crèches at Christmas don't enrage me; and I can ignore the outward signs of other people's faith when they're not hitting me over the head with them.  Maybe that's why I can see this case has nothing to do with the "separation" issue.  This case doesn't belong in the Supreme Court, or in any court. 

It's a matter of history.  At the time this cross was erected in 1934, our society was far more religiously homogeneous than it is today; for those relative few who weren't Christian at that time (e.g. atheists, Jews, probably even a few Muslims), there wasn't much recourse.  The dangerously quaint Justice Scalia (who by some accounts is exasperated by the suggestion that the cross does not symbolize a final resting place to Jews or Muslims) would have fit right in back then; his mode of thinking was the majority view.  It isn't any longer. 

It seems to me we have to let history be history.  Throughout parts of the Balkans where the Ottoman Empire held sway for hundreds of years, Muslims obliterated the faces of ancient frescos in countless pre-Ottoman churches and monasteries; when the Ottomans took over "Constantinople" from the decaying Byzantine Empire, they turned the Cathedral of St. Sophia into a mosque (and later a museum); in 2001, in Afghanistan, the Taliban demolished the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan; and of course, throughout the U.S. and Europe, countless Jewish gravestones have been vandalized.  Today, we consider these acts as desecration and intolerance. 

Would the removal of this Mojave cross (or even some wacky transfer of ownership of the land) be any different?  Not a whit.  The ACLU and their allies are wrong on this one.  But so is the Supreme Court, in taking up this case, if the Justices seek to draw any conclusions regarding the First Amendment or church-state separation.

It's a far different matter nowadays, when the issue is whether new religious imagery should be erected in/on property of the U.S. or a state government which is charged to represent all citizens.  In 2009, the answer is clearly "no."

Business Ethics

Steven Pearlstein today uses a viewing of Michael Moore's latest film as a springboard to consider ethics and responsibility in business.  It's worth a read.  Even the Pope gets into the act, being quoted as saying that "Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."  (Reading this, I immediately imagined Stalin asking, "How many corporations does the Pope have?"  But I digress.)

The columnist's evidence seems a little thin -- mainly, a few young people and mavericks yearning for a little more meaning in their humdrum profit-seeking lives.  If that in fact signals a new impetus for a generation of businesspeople who are motivated not just by profit, but at least by profit operating in tandem with a social ethic, I'm all for it.  A trend of that kind, if it lasts, could help prevent some of the excesses of the past decade -- the excesses that culminated in our current economic doldrums. 

Still, I think it is too optimistic to conclude that capitalism is the "least bad" system because it "is best at correcting its own excesses."  In fact, I can't think of too many points in history where that has occurred; the fact is that self-policing doesn't work, and the hand of government has almost always  been required to put a stop to abuses.  

Pearlstein observes that people are profoundly disillusioned and deeply mistrustful of the capitalist ethos after two decades that haven't delivered economic gains for the average household.  True.  And it seems to me that many are equally disillusioned with a government that until recently has made little effort to "correct the excesses" of capitalism.  Surrounded by a dark forest full of marauding bears, people will warily go about their daily lives; it's when the watchdog doesn't bark that they become seriously fearful.