The End of Civility

-->

What is civility?  Is there a common definition anymore?  As we grow into this instant global information net must we rethink what or how we understand civilized conduct?  Unfortunately I think the only answer we can offer is yes, we must.

Surfing around the multiple media sites seems to me to be akin to a carnival mid-way with barkers yelling out to gain your attention, and just as in the mid-way they must be rewarded with sufficient audience to continue.  This has moved to our television as well.  Comedy, dramas, melodramas, and variety shows have lost their appeal, it is all about pseudo-reality. 

On social media condemnation of, and attacks on, individuals are now the standard.  Find a poster that expresses your anger, copy and post!  You have now made your contribution to the social debate. Pain free, thought free. But then how many hours do people we pay to see, devote themselves to the fawning of celebrity and the destruction of it?

I was reminded today of a quote variously attributed to Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt, Admiral Hyman Rickover, or unknown that says, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.”  If the public and commercial media are any indication we have become a people of small minds led by politicians of like quality.  I guess that is what we deserve.

I wonder, do I set this next round out?

It’s a Conundrum

-->

We have become obsessed with government regulation to keep us safe.  We impose these regulations on our producers, manufacturers and industries to the point we drive production overseas where we have absolutely no visibility on how things are done.

Then we set our priorities on paying for big programs, with managers for managers and assistants to the managers, so that when budgets are built the workers themselves are too expensive and the work force is reduced to the point where we only randomly inspect goods coming into our country.  Then we wonder how dangerous stuff gets into our products.  In our zeal to protect ourselves – have we?

We complain about how the rich get richer, while the poor stay poor.  We set up vast bureaucracies to redistribute wealth.  Unfortunately the tax code regulations, written, rewritten, modified and amended over the past 100 years, are a vast hodge-podge of rules established to fund the government while encouraging business, and perhaps protect those whose political favor is sought by the politicians.  Because of this, the wealth distribution really only happens between the middle class and the poor while the rich are able to maneuver within the labyrinth of shelters and loop holes.

We now talk about more taxing of the 1%; unfortunately 99% of the people who say that don’t have a clue as to what it means because they are the self-same ones who say their taxes are too high.  They clamor on the backs of the political operatives who’ve found someone to blame for our problems.  They are inflaming the passions of people who want everything - but want someone else to pay for it, just as they did when they argued that taxes were too high in California and pushed for Proposition 13.  We don’t like to pay taxes so let’s not!  Of course what was a jewel of a State University system back then -- isn’t anymore and the entire infrastructure of the state is questionable, but so many people know what is right let’s just do all their right things, even if we don’t have funds, heck it is only debt and that’s someone else’s problem isn’t it? 

Then we come to the protections of the Constitution.  Historically we viewed the Constitution as not only the framework for our government, but in its amendments the bedrock of protections of the individual against the transgressions of the state.  Now we seek to use those protections to bludgeon the individual when their wishes run counter to the loudest voices of the political movements, and we do so through a willing court system that carries those self-same political agendas.  It is for some - more important to get their way then to protect the concept of independence and individuality, so in the name of some cause they are willing to sacrifice their freedoms, one same step at a time.

History has shown political movements are like pendulums.  Swinging first one way; then the other with increasing movement to the extreme, until something cataclysmic forces them to reset.  It is inevitable, just a matter of time before it happens.  Then what?

It is indeed a conundrum.

So Many Memories

-->

We must live in the present, for that is where life happens.  The joys, the sadness, the triumphs and defeats are now.  Just ask the US and Japanese Women’s Soccer Teams, where they thinking about yesterday or tomorrow?  But the present becomes the past and is replaced by the future.  Thoreau tells us “You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment.”  But at some point we should step out of the present and review the past if we are to prepare for, and shape the future.

How do we know what is right, just, and moral, if we are convinced to condemn the memories because they offend? Where will our context for future evaluation come from?

One sun drenched morning in 1980 I climbed down the steps of an aircraft that had taken me a thousand miles into harms way and had brought me home.  Without men – this aircraft was nothing, but without this aircraft we were just individuals.  Together we formed a group united in purpose and willing to do whatever was asked of us.  We carried the hopes of a President and an unknowing nation into an effort that, at best, was assessed as only a little better than a 50% chance of success.

As I sat under the wing of that aircraft, limp and still as the heat rose off the hard packed desert, I was flooded with the memories of the last 15 hours and let those events flow from me.  The complete and overwhelming sense of failure, the sense of pain for those we lost, and concern for those we brought home severely burned and wounded.  I spent some considerable time in prayer seeking to understand why.  God doesn’t seem to tell me the why’s to a lot of my questions.

Little did I imagine this would be the opening salvo of America’s long religious war with the Middle East and radical Islam?  But perhaps that is too smug an idea.  The west has been at war with Islam since before the crusades, but like a fire it ebbs and flares.  Today, with modern weapons it just seems to be noisier as we replace secular states allowing fundamentalist’s to gain power and they in turn exert their powers on their neighbors.

So here we are now 35 years later and I’ve added so many more memories yet these initial ones continue to offend me for the tragic nature of their origin

Independence Day

As the parades march down the roads of towns and villages across the county, as we prepare cookouts, and then wander down to our parks for the fireworks it is easy to get caught up in the festivities, our families, and our communities.  We may sing some songs, we will drink some beer, and we will wave some flags, but will we spend any time considering how we became a nation and the courage the founding fathers showed?

We get all caught up in the politics of today with distinctions between liberal, progressive and conservative.  I am not sure the meanings we use today would match the definitions used in the past, but I think one thing is unmistakable.  The men who joined together to alter the path of empire, and the individuals in the country who joined with them were bound by a vision of the future we can only envy today.  They were progressive beyond anything we are willing to accept in their willingness to challenge the norm.  They were liberal in a way we cannot conceive where the ideas a new way were debated.  Where tolerance for opposing ideas was shown in every debate and everything was challenged and minds changed in debate as we faced a common hardship.  

 The one thing they were not was conservative in their views of government, but they bent to accommodate those who were, recognizing that change is only institutionalized if the majority agrees.  The religious differences were as strong then as today, but they recognized that to survive and prosper civil government and the church must be separate.

Today those have issues with the churches seek to use the government as a bludgeon against those institutions.

So what do we celebrate this Independence Day?  Is it a time to reflect on our commonality, or demand we recognize our differences?  If we focus on the latter, then I am afraid the number of future Independence Day celebrations will be limited.

Friday, June 26, 2015

-->

It has been an interesting week.  Just a couple of thoughts on the decisions handed down from the bench by the Supreme Court of the United States.   First in the decision in King v. Burwell the court held by a vote of 6 to 3 that words plainly written don’t really mean what they say and that if necessary can be made to mean what they want.

In Chief Justice Robert’s majority opinion plaintiff’s case rests on the meaning of the term “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” and as he says “In other words, three things must be true: First, the individual must enroll in an insurance plan through ‘an Exchange.’ Second, that Exchange must be ‘established by the State.’ And third, that Exchange must be established ‘under [42 U. S. C. §18031].’”

The majority finds that “an Exchange established by the State” really means any exchange whether established by the State or the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  They find rational for this in noting that the bill has a number of poorly worded sections leading to ambiguity, because it was written in secret (behind closed doors) and not thoroughly debated, as has been the normal expectation of a law.  I would just point out the reason this law has been challenged is precisely for that reason, the people and their representatives did not have adequate time to vet the law and its impact.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, in his dissent notes, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

The court has shown in previous rulings its support of this law, and it continues to do so, reflecting a position that laws its Justices like are treated differently than laws they don’t.  When necessary, they will rationalize away troublesome statements if it furthers a desired social end.

Which brings us to Obergefell v Hodges.  In this case the plaintiffs challenged the states of Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky over their definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The court held in a five to four ruling that plaintiffs were guaranteed the right to marry under the protection of the 14^th amendment.  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  While Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito all wrote dissenting opinions (with a lot of joining of each other)

Justice Kennedy notes in his opinion, “the history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.  Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”  The majority further notes “… lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Chief Justice Roberts offers an interesting dissent that speaks to the overreach of the majority acting in the role of a legislature in defining marriage.  I agree with his closing statement. “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”

Justice Scalia in his dissent also reflects my concern that the court, in order to achieve a desired social outcome has put an end to the democratic process we all have a role in.

“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing

their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.”

Justice Scalia points out with this ruling, “No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect, and therefore the court takes on to itself the moral judge for the nation.  Rather than expect that the People will modify the Constitution or write sound law the nine justices of the Supreme Court will lead the nation.

Justice Thomas takes a more libertarian view of the majorities overreach stating, “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”  He also voices a concern over the inevitable impingement on the religious freedoms this nation has long prided itself on.

Justice Alito also voices his concern over the Court’s decision to interject itself into the political debate and the potential for future overreach based on this decision.

So is this how we begin the destruction of the representative democracy in the United States?  Perhaps, or not, but I am sure of one thing.  Just as we have seen in Roe v Wade, the best intentions of the Justices will lead to conflict and division within the Nation that will not go away just because they will it to.  It will also not end with this definition of marriage as the union between two people.  It is simply a matter of time before some other group seeks a broader definition in the name of personal liberty, makes enough noise, and the court, convinced they know what is best grants it.

What is most disturbing is the belief by the majority that trampling on the meaning of words, specifically the words of our Constitution are justified by the end.  For me this is a parallel to the Senate of Roman anointing an emperor and letting him rule by fiat.  We seem to be heading down the path where majority rule is a quaint but archaic concept.

Thoughts on Charleston

-->

It amazes me how easily we become enamored by a catchy saying made by authority figures. We fall into lock step with those who would have things exactly their way and become the vocal army they build the illusion of leading.

In today’s America we see forces building and leveraging the core hatred and racial prejudice that Dr. King gave his life to overcome.

In his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” Dr. King notes.

“In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.”

He goes on to describe the difference be just laws and unjust laws as

“An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.”

So we come to the present.  Our federal and state institutions have made strides forward in protecting the rights of the Negro, or Black, or African-American, but still – every day their uniqueness is made the central issue of any story.  Dr. King struggled to bring equality to the African-American community; until those we allow to lead us truly believe in equality it will not happen.  I find neither party truly supports the equality of the races.  The Democrats would have them become wards of the state through dependence on welfare, while the Republicans have lost sight of their foundational beliefs, and having gained the traditional white southern Democrats as members, seek to maintain the status quo. 

Again as Dr. King noted in his letter.

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Between these two factions grows the ignorance and intolerance of racial hatred.

Today Charleston South Carolina grieves because a racist young terrorist or thug went into a house of God and took the lives of nine worshipers. Everyone from the President on down has made comment on this, but what I see is a difference in America that is subtle, and should be unmistakable.  Within hours of this horrific event the authorities identified, tracked down, and captured the perpetrator.  How different than what Dr. King experienced in the church bombings of the 60’s where the state authorities actually helped cover-up the evidence?  Unfortunately, so many choose to use our differences to divide and gain advantage that we are unlikely to appreciate the evolution.

Campaign 2016 (it will never end)