I do not assert that any form of dissent against one's citizenship country is a direct line to treason. I understand the argument that trying to undermine the legitimacy and existence of the country where one is a citizen is a treasonous act. However, dissenting against the policies and perspectives, the structures and processes, of one's country and seeking to transform them, are honorable endeavors. This viewpoint is not based on the founding of the United States, as some try to claim to appease others and to enervate concerns about treason. Dissent is an invaluable right in a democratic republic, and it is a vital part of civic engagement and the political process.
One of the major problems in our public discourse is that people resort to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, especially when they are unable to discover any substantive way to disagree with another person's point of view. Seeking to discredit another individual rather than building a case against what that person asserts or does is simply disingenuous. People are going to engage in that illogical process continually; what we must do is to point out the ignorance, obtuseness, and puerility of it.
There are a number of policies and approaches of the Obama Administration with which I disagree. For example, I am an advocate of pacifism and nonviolent diplomacy in resolving internatonal conflict; consequently, I am opposed to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In addition, I believe we should address and redress the plight of the poor; consequently, I disagree with claiming merely to attend to the bolstering of the middle class and remaining impervious to the debilitating conditions of the indigent. While I feel strongly about these matters, I am not interested in personally attacking those who disagree with me. Rather, I seek to persuade them of the folly of their thought and action, because my ultimate goal is to have the ends and the means cohere (i.e., use peaceful means to reach peaceful ends) and to elimate homelessness, hunger, lack of shelter, inaccessible health care, inadequate education, unemployment, underemployment, and disease that undermine life chances and cause the resort to crime, violence, drug abuse, sex, and other symptoms, or manifestations, of hopelessness and despair.
When there are meaningful disagreements with the direction of government entities, many recourses abound that can effectuate change and steer trends in a different way. Organizing people in such multiple and variegated efforts is the beauty of democracy. Putting people down, engaging in rumors, deceptions, and lies, and concealing information and facts are anathema to the political process--even though a number of public officials and civic leaders participate in those kinds of activities. In my opinion, people who resort to such dissembling, chicanery, and hyperbole are actually behaving treasonously, and those who do not call them out on the carpet for it may also be treasonably quiescent!
Let's be clear about the nobility of dissent and the ignobility of treason. The ignominy of the latter is just as great as the probity of the former. Not to make this distinction is the kind of silence that is betrayal!
Monday, January 4, 2010
Auld Lang Syne
The first thing to note is that many people are in error when they refer to the year 2010 as the beginning of a new decade. On the one hand, any year can be characterized as the start, or end for that matter, of a decade. But, if we are referring to the first decade of the twenty-first century, then we need to recognize that said decade technically ends on December 31, 2010, and did not end on December 31, 2009. The decade of the twenty-first century began on January 1, 2001, and not the previous year. The end of the twentieth century occurred at the end of the day on December 31, 2000. So, we have another year to complete the first decade of the twenty-first century.
I try not to make resolutions in a serious way, for I am too conscious of my own shortcomings and of the reality of human limitations. Usually, I write a poem at the end of the year that reflects on what went on and what I hope to do better. But, in a very real sense, each day of my life is an attempt to be a better person and to engage in thoughts and actions that will take me there. In actual fact, it does not have to be when I wake up in the morning that I embark on an effort to best yesterday. Each moment of my life provides the opportunity for improvement. Whether I take advantage of those periods of time is not even something to consider, for success is not a fair or adequate measure. What's more important is that I am disposed towards continually examining my life with a strong inclination towards being a better individual.
The above notwithstanding, I will seek to be more invested in sharing my commentary on current events and engaging in social-ethical analysis of those happenings. As you can see, it has already taken me five days into the new year to commence my commitment. But that should be no surprise, for most of us have probably skimped a little on our resolve. Nevertheless, I urge you, as I urge myself, to keep trying. Practice will never make perfect, but perfection is never the goal. Getting better, however, is always a future possibility--barring a life-threatening catastrophe. Let's progress!
I try not to make resolutions in a serious way, for I am too conscious of my own shortcomings and of the reality of human limitations. Usually, I write a poem at the end of the year that reflects on what went on and what I hope to do better. But, in a very real sense, each day of my life is an attempt to be a better person and to engage in thoughts and actions that will take me there. In actual fact, it does not have to be when I wake up in the morning that I embark on an effort to best yesterday. Each moment of my life provides the opportunity for improvement. Whether I take advantage of those periods of time is not even something to consider, for success is not a fair or adequate measure. What's more important is that I am disposed towards continually examining my life with a strong inclination towards being a better individual.
The above notwithstanding, I will seek to be more invested in sharing my commentary on current events and engaging in social-ethical analysis of those happenings. As you can see, it has already taken me five days into the new year to commence my commitment. But that should be no surprise, for most of us have probably skimped a little on our resolve. Nevertheless, I urge you, as I urge myself, to keep trying. Practice will never make perfect, but perfection is never the goal. Getting better, however, is always a future possibility--barring a life-threatening catastrophe. Let's progress!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Health Care: A Moral Issue
It was horrible that the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate who mildly supported the public option, already embraced by the U.S. House, believed it was compelled to drop that part of their health care proposal because the Senate Republicans and renegade Democrats would not stomach it. Now, it's being said that the extension of Medicare to people between 55 and 64 years old is also dead in the water, so to speak, because some of the same individuals do not wish to swim in that direction.
What is the problem with expanding health care and reforming a failed and failing system in order to increase the number of citizens who have access to quality and affordable medical insurance and care? The spiraling costs of health care have been oppressive for decades, and our governmental leaders have failed to ensure that every person has reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of what is needed to sustain a physically robust lifestyle. I realize some administrations have tried, and some have worked valiantly to curtail the outrageous costs of medical care, health insurance, and prescription medication. With millions of people unable to afford basic care, and in the midst of an economic crisis the rebound from which has not significantly reached the masses of people, the denial of a fundamental existential need such as that which sustains basic health is simply unconscionable and immoral.
A health care bill that does not include a public option mocks real reform. A single-payer system, in my opinion, would be ideal. However, the ostensible compromise of a moderate expansion of Medicare down to those ten years younger than the current insurance allows also caricatures the recognition that our system is broken and excludes countless millions of people. Certainly, in the realm of negotiation, there must be some way that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration can compel those who arrogantly oppose real health reform to vote in favor of substantive change in favor of the consumer. Fear of filibusters and other tactics should not change the direction on the moral compass for those who staked their political careers on finally making constructive, innovative, and expansive health care reform the law of the land.
This is a fight that should not be relinquished. The Senate must find a way to get the numbers where they need to be without compromising out the very items that adequately cover the tens of millions who have been categorically locked out of access to quality, affordable care for many decades.
What is the problem with expanding health care and reforming a failed and failing system in order to increase the number of citizens who have access to quality and affordable medical insurance and care? The spiraling costs of health care have been oppressive for decades, and our governmental leaders have failed to ensure that every person has reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of what is needed to sustain a physically robust lifestyle. I realize some administrations have tried, and some have worked valiantly to curtail the outrageous costs of medical care, health insurance, and prescription medication. With millions of people unable to afford basic care, and in the midst of an economic crisis the rebound from which has not significantly reached the masses of people, the denial of a fundamental existential need such as that which sustains basic health is simply unconscionable and immoral.
A health care bill that does not include a public option mocks real reform. A single-payer system, in my opinion, would be ideal. However, the ostensible compromise of a moderate expansion of Medicare down to those ten years younger than the current insurance allows also caricatures the recognition that our system is broken and excludes countless millions of people. Certainly, in the realm of negotiation, there must be some way that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration can compel those who arrogantly oppose real health reform to vote in favor of substantive change in favor of the consumer. Fear of filibusters and other tactics should not change the direction on the moral compass for those who staked their political careers on finally making constructive, innovative, and expansive health care reform the law of the land.
This is a fight that should not be relinquished. The Senate must find a way to get the numbers where they need to be without compromising out the very items that adequately cover the tens of millions who have been categorically locked out of access to quality, affordable care for many decades.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
In the Woods: A Pro's Cons
Whether one is a fan of golf or not or indifferent, it is difficult not to know the name Tiger Woods. He is quite the sports icon, self-marketer, and money-maker. His talents as a professional golfer and athlete are legendary. Many people are celebrity hounds, so to speak, and love to absorb stories about famous people, regardless of their verisimilitude.
What is unfortunate about our hagiography, iconography, and overall fascination with the rich and famous is that we are setting ourselves up for a great fall. Of course, some of us like to see others fall for a variety of reasons. However, when we idolize people for their talents, looks, wealth, and so forth, we oftentimes forget they are human and prone to the same failings and shortcomings of us all. To avoid being devastated by the imperfections, eccentricities, and transgressions of people we adore, we should never ignore the fact that human beings are fallible, limited, and inconsistent and are always works in progress. Sometimes, progress is replaced by regression. We need to find a way to maintain a balance in our perceptions of others.
Another regrettable element in the involuntary exposure of Tiger Woods to such negative press is the lack of honesty in the face of embarrassment in what the very private man briefly, yet repeatedly, related to the media. By "honesty" is not meant that Woods had to make the incident an open book to the media. Rather, simply saying that he did not want to speak about the matter at that time would probably have sufficed. Instead, he elected to engage in some subterfuge, under the guise of his desire for privacy, which resulted in more scrutiny and inquiry than he would have had if clarity and sincerity of expression were employed.
Should Woods' personal idiosyncrasies that opened a window to his humanity cost him the endorsement deals that have helped him to accrue additional millions of dollars? Answering this question is a bit challenging, for the fact of the matter is that he capitalized on his untainted and wholesome public persona by landing and accepting compensation for the use of his name and image. When the name and image that he bartered and sold became soiled and sullied, did he forfeit the benefit of that capitalization? Maybe, and justifiably so. Although the final decision whether or not to continue his contract rests with the companies Woods endorsed, the whole situation should cause all of us to pause and reflect on the ways we are enablers of the I-Can-Do-No-Wrong mentality, of the unwarranted placing of people on pedestals, and of the malicious self-righteousness we harbor when others fail while cutting slack to ourselves when we regularly misstep.
Certainly, we will begin to see a new-and-improved Tiger Woods over the next couple of years. Even his golf game might dramatically improve--a feat that is hard to fathom, save for his recent faux pas. But before he once again ingratiates himself to his fans, let us recognize that the fault is ours to grant unto him an inhuman spot in our hearts. Neither he nor we deserve that!
What is unfortunate about our hagiography, iconography, and overall fascination with the rich and famous is that we are setting ourselves up for a great fall. Of course, some of us like to see others fall for a variety of reasons. However, when we idolize people for their talents, looks, wealth, and so forth, we oftentimes forget they are human and prone to the same failings and shortcomings of us all. To avoid being devastated by the imperfections, eccentricities, and transgressions of people we adore, we should never ignore the fact that human beings are fallible, limited, and inconsistent and are always works in progress. Sometimes, progress is replaced by regression. We need to find a way to maintain a balance in our perceptions of others.
Another regrettable element in the involuntary exposure of Tiger Woods to such negative press is the lack of honesty in the face of embarrassment in what the very private man briefly, yet repeatedly, related to the media. By "honesty" is not meant that Woods had to make the incident an open book to the media. Rather, simply saying that he did not want to speak about the matter at that time would probably have sufficed. Instead, he elected to engage in some subterfuge, under the guise of his desire for privacy, which resulted in more scrutiny and inquiry than he would have had if clarity and sincerity of expression were employed.
Should Woods' personal idiosyncrasies that opened a window to his humanity cost him the endorsement deals that have helped him to accrue additional millions of dollars? Answering this question is a bit challenging, for the fact of the matter is that he capitalized on his untainted and wholesome public persona by landing and accepting compensation for the use of his name and image. When the name and image that he bartered and sold became soiled and sullied, did he forfeit the benefit of that capitalization? Maybe, and justifiably so. Although the final decision whether or not to continue his contract rests with the companies Woods endorsed, the whole situation should cause all of us to pause and reflect on the ways we are enablers of the I-Can-Do-No-Wrong mentality, of the unwarranted placing of people on pedestals, and of the malicious self-righteousness we harbor when others fail while cutting slack to ourselves when we regularly misstep.
Certainly, we will begin to see a new-and-improved Tiger Woods over the next couple of years. Even his golf game might dramatically improve--a feat that is hard to fathom, save for his recent faux pas. But before he once again ingratiates himself to his fans, let us recognize that the fault is ours to grant unto him an inhuman spot in our hearts. Neither he nor we deserve that!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Option to Opt Out of Public Option? Ridiculous!
The last time I was infuriated over states' rights was as a child and during subsequent readings about the Civil Rights Era. Many leaders and citizens of southern states wanted to continue to enjoy the system of de facto racial segregation and discrimination despite the passage of Brown versus Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, to please conservative politicians and their ill-advised constituencies, the new Senate proposal on health care reform includes the ability of states to opt out of making available a public option!
This exemption is anathema for those who do not have adequate access to health care, who do not have health insurance, and whose disposable income does not make it feasible to purchase coverage from the private sector. Every state should be required to ensure all of its citizens have viable opportunities to insure themselves.
It is a tragic consequence of American democracy that people are given the liberty to deny others fundamental rights so that a certain standard of living can be maintained and enhanced. Moreover, what's more egregious, if that is even possible, is that success in the political arena nowadays seems to mandate even the mildest of progressives to mouth and support centrist views that not only defy common decency and morality, but also compromise their integrity and the trust that others who voted for them were assiduously promised.
I understand that politics is a game of compromise, but if conservatives and moderates are unwilling to participate in such negotiation, then it is foolhardy for progressives and leftists unilaterally to concede.
It is forty-one years since President Harry S. Truman sought to address the health care debacle. If we do not attend to this matter now in a constructive manner, we cannot wash our hands of the lack of patriotism and care of souls!
This exemption is anathema for those who do not have adequate access to health care, who do not have health insurance, and whose disposable income does not make it feasible to purchase coverage from the private sector. Every state should be required to ensure all of its citizens have viable opportunities to insure themselves.
It is a tragic consequence of American democracy that people are given the liberty to deny others fundamental rights so that a certain standard of living can be maintained and enhanced. Moreover, what's more egregious, if that is even possible, is that success in the political arena nowadays seems to mandate even the mildest of progressives to mouth and support centrist views that not only defy common decency and morality, but also compromise their integrity and the trust that others who voted for them were assiduously promised.
I understand that politics is a game of compromise, but if conservatives and moderates are unwilling to participate in such negotiation, then it is foolhardy for progressives and leftists unilaterally to concede.
It is forty-one years since President Harry S. Truman sought to address the health care debacle. If we do not attend to this matter now in a constructive manner, we cannot wash our hands of the lack of patriotism and care of souls!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Frankly, I was surprised at first to hear that President Barack Obama would be the recipient of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace. Like most people who were similarly stunned, I felt that it was too early to award him with the honor for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Although it is remarkable that citizens of the United States have put into office a person who is categorized as a member of a sociocultural, racial, and ethnic group once shackled under the iron feet of slavery, I did not believe such an accomplishment was attributable to Obama alone; nor did I feel this feat warranted company with Jane Addams, Ralph Bunche, Albert Einstein, Albert Lutuli, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Nelson Mandela, among others. I just could not see it.
Clearly, the award to Obama is more about potentiality than it is about the phenomenon of his candidacy. Racism in the United States is still our greatest moral dilemma, despite the rapid ascendancy of Obama's public life. The negative effects of American capitalism, i.e., the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots, still permeate our economic milieu even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Heightening our involvement in one theater of war, Afghanistan, and gradually drawing down troops in another, Iraq, have left little incentive really to focus on addressing other hot spots that need diplomatic attention. Certainly, Obama has not had the opportunity to address many of the concerns for which he is being feted on December 10 of this year.
After all, it would be ridiculous to try to award him for not harping on the public option as a necessary component of any health care reform. It is preposterous to compliment him on trying to reach a level of bipartisanship that nullifies the progressive wing of his own core political affiliations. It would be ludicrous to pat him on the back when he has not had the opportunity to work towards a two-state solution in the conflict between Palestine and Israel. And it borders on unconscionable to laud him for Internet savvy, compelling small donations from the indigent, and basking in the sunshine of celebrity. So, it must needs be because the Nobel Committee hopes to influence the trajectory of his presidency by applying the pressure of receipt of such a prestigious gift.
We shall see whether this accolade becomes too great of a burden to bear!
Clearly, the award to Obama is more about potentiality than it is about the phenomenon of his candidacy. Racism in the United States is still our greatest moral dilemma, despite the rapid ascendancy of Obama's public life. The negative effects of American capitalism, i.e., the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots, still permeate our economic milieu even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Heightening our involvement in one theater of war, Afghanistan, and gradually drawing down troops in another, Iraq, have left little incentive really to focus on addressing other hot spots that need diplomatic attention. Certainly, Obama has not had the opportunity to address many of the concerns for which he is being feted on December 10 of this year.
After all, it would be ridiculous to try to award him for not harping on the public option as a necessary component of any health care reform. It is preposterous to compliment him on trying to reach a level of bipartisanship that nullifies the progressive wing of his own core political affiliations. It would be ludicrous to pat him on the back when he has not had the opportunity to work towards a two-state solution in the conflict between Palestine and Israel. And it borders on unconscionable to laud him for Internet savvy, compelling small donations from the indigent, and basking in the sunshine of celebrity. So, it must needs be because the Nobel Committee hopes to influence the trajectory of his presidency by applying the pressure of receipt of such a prestigious gift.
We shall see whether this accolade becomes too great of a burden to bear!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Horror of Afghanistan
During then-Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, I cringed every time I heard him decry U.S. involvement in Iraq, only to raise his voice about righteously going into Afghanistan, crushing Al Quaeda, finding Osama bin Laden, and killing him. The violence in and of his words always haunted me, and still does, because it confirmed my suspicions that our country has to be involved in some kind of warfare in order to survive and thrive. It's a cold war mentality, which was already utterly ridiculous, gone further amuck! Evil is never solely outside ourselves. We as a nation can easily pinpoint when another country or agency is execrable, but we have a very difficult time discerning our own culpability and perniciousness.
Many thoughtful and well-meaning people recognize our mischief-making, imperialism, manipulation and intrusion into the affairs of other countries--how such actions greatly contribute to the way the United States is characterized by other countries. If we are honest with ourselves, we would also understand the relationship of cause and effect or the interplay of means and ends. Violence or retaliation against another nation may sometimes be justifiable, according to some, but it is never perpetrated in a vacuum. The attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, was not prosecuted simply because the people were mad, i.e., crazy. I was not merely because their fanaticism "caused" them to do such a heinous crime. They struck a symbol, in their estimation, of Western imperialistic hegemony. It was stupid, wrong, and inhumane. The egregiousness of their acts that day can never be condoned. The acts could not gain the attention of the world and satisfy the goals of the Muslim rebels. But it was and is the choice of the U.S. government and its people the manner in which they would respond. Thus far, in my opinion, we have chosen wrongly and unethically.
I would like to lift up an individual who I believe could be a model for the Arabic, Muslim, and Western worlds: namely, Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Khan was a member of the Pathan people, many of whom live in Afghanistan. In recent centuries, the Pathan people were considered to be aggressive, violent, and vengeful. Khan gravitated towards the nonviolent revolution being conducted by Gandhi in India, and he became a loyal pupil, taking up the mantle of peacemaking by organizing a nonviolent army of 100,000 men. These nonviolent Muslim Pathans, "Khudai Khidmatgars," committed their lives to the cause of freedom and human dignity. They not only renounced violence, but also surrendered their tack of revenge and retaliation. Khan believed that nonviolence was an ennobling and empowering force that could truly transform lives both individually and collectively. His concern for humanity and peace is likened to that of his mentor, Gandhi, as well as to Buddha, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Francis, and Mother Teresa.
The life of Badshah Khan ("badshah" means "king") compels us to recognize that people can change despite deeply ingrained proclivities. There is no excuse. The United States does not have to insist upon a perpetual search for bin Laden in order to make the world attribute to us super-powerful resolve and revenge. We can focus on more constructive endeavors, many of which would be domestic in nature, to rebuild our reputation as a leading nation that cares for those who are unhealthy, impoverished, and disempowered. Also, we can take measures, many of which would require better policing, in essence, to ensure our borders are protected. In addition, we could develop a more honest way to market, if you will, the positive things our government and its people are doing, so that the world community would be apprised of them.
The first step would be to withdraw from Afghanistan. We can use those excess military coffers to approximate the vision briefly alluded to above--something that will eventuate into the best possible society.
Many thoughtful and well-meaning people recognize our mischief-making, imperialism, manipulation and intrusion into the affairs of other countries--how such actions greatly contribute to the way the United States is characterized by other countries. If we are honest with ourselves, we would also understand the relationship of cause and effect or the interplay of means and ends. Violence or retaliation against another nation may sometimes be justifiable, according to some, but it is never perpetrated in a vacuum. The attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, was not prosecuted simply because the people were mad, i.e., crazy. I was not merely because their fanaticism "caused" them to do such a heinous crime. They struck a symbol, in their estimation, of Western imperialistic hegemony. It was stupid, wrong, and inhumane. The egregiousness of their acts that day can never be condoned. The acts could not gain the attention of the world and satisfy the goals of the Muslim rebels. But it was and is the choice of the U.S. government and its people the manner in which they would respond. Thus far, in my opinion, we have chosen wrongly and unethically.
I would like to lift up an individual who I believe could be a model for the Arabic, Muslim, and Western worlds: namely, Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Khan was a member of the Pathan people, many of whom live in Afghanistan. In recent centuries, the Pathan people were considered to be aggressive, violent, and vengeful. Khan gravitated towards the nonviolent revolution being conducted by Gandhi in India, and he became a loyal pupil, taking up the mantle of peacemaking by organizing a nonviolent army of 100,000 men. These nonviolent Muslim Pathans, "Khudai Khidmatgars," committed their lives to the cause of freedom and human dignity. They not only renounced violence, but also surrendered their tack of revenge and retaliation. Khan believed that nonviolence was an ennobling and empowering force that could truly transform lives both individually and collectively. His concern for humanity and peace is likened to that of his mentor, Gandhi, as well as to Buddha, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Francis, and Mother Teresa.
The life of Badshah Khan ("badshah" means "king") compels us to recognize that people can change despite deeply ingrained proclivities. There is no excuse. The United States does not have to insist upon a perpetual search for bin Laden in order to make the world attribute to us super-powerful resolve and revenge. We can focus on more constructive endeavors, many of which would be domestic in nature, to rebuild our reputation as a leading nation that cares for those who are unhealthy, impoverished, and disempowered. Also, we can take measures, many of which would require better policing, in essence, to ensure our borders are protected. In addition, we could develop a more honest way to market, if you will, the positive things our government and its people are doing, so that the world community would be apprised of them.
The first step would be to withdraw from Afghanistan. We can use those excess military coffers to approximate the vision briefly alluded to above--something that will eventuate into the best possible society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)