Happy Holidays & Ben Stein Chain Emails (Redux)

Way back in December 2008, I posted a very long, two-part essay about a the use of the phrase “Happy Holidays”, a chain email about something that Ben Stein said, and the so-called “War on Christmas”. Well, here it is, mid-December, and like clockwork I’ve received my first annual copy of the Ben Stein chain email (I usually receive 2-3 copies each year, normally starting in the week or so after Thanksgiving) and have already been subjected to several complaints about the “War on Christmas”. So, I decided to repost my original essay. I’ve cleaned up some typos and formatting errors and combined the two parts into one very long post (if you’re interested, here a links to the original posts: Ben Stein, Chain Emails, & "Happy Holidays" (Part 1) and Ben Stein, Chain Emails, & "Happy Holidays" (Part 2)). You’ve been warned. I’ve put new 2011 additions in purple. I’d hoped to check all of the external links to be sure that they were still active and correct but … well, I do have a job and a family…

But I would really love to hear back from people with their thoughts on the “War on Christmas”, the use of “Happy Holidays” and the general notion of respecting one another.

---

Part 1

Let me apologize in advance for the length of this post and of Part 2 (which I'm actually posting at the same time). Unfortunately, to do justice to the subject, I found that I had to write even more than my usual relatively-lengthy posts. Sorry. And with that, away we go...

First a little background. I’m sure that you've received numerous chain emails on a whole host of different topics. Usually, I just hit the delete key and move on, but every now and then one of these chain emails either interests me or offends me or both. I participate in a number of mailing lists related to various subjects. One of these mailing lists pertains to certain health care matters and is supposed to be limited to that topic. Nevertheless, one particular poster frequently feels the need to send cute little jokes and inspirational messages that I ignore (the jokes aren’t funny and the messages aren’t inspirational). She has also been prone to sending chain emails to the mailing list and, on more than one occasion, these chain emails have been untrue (hoax virus warnings, the crying baby on the doorstep urban legend, and other similar things that have been debunked by Snopes and others). When I receive these messages, I often send her (or others from whom I receive similar messages) a private email noting that the chain email is a hoax or urban legend and offering some suggestions on how to identify hoaxes in the future. Again, this may be an annoyance, but it isn’t really harmful.

But then one day, she posted a message that got me angry (I’ll discuss the subject matter in a minute). After reading the message several times, I started doing a little online research of my own. I found that part of the message was a mostly accurate transcript of an original commentary but that it had been combined with a number of other bits and pieces without proper attribution and which were incorrect. Moreover, even ignoring the numerous errors in the message, I found the subject matter and the conclusions reached by the authors to be highly objectionable. So I decided to write a response. Over the course of a number of lunch hours I drafted my response. I wrote and tweaked and edited until I was happy with my response. My only real concern was that the tone of my response was much harsher than the tone I usually use, but I felt that the circumstances warranted that tone. Finally, before I posted my response, I sent it to my wife to review. She told me that it was a well-written message that did an excellent job of addressing the issues; however, she told me that if I posted the message she would have to kill me. All I would accomplish, she explained, would be the creation of a flame war on the mailing list (in which she is a frequent participant). We argued, but eventually I relented and decided to hold my tongue. I tucked my post away in my drafts folder where it has stayed for quite some time.

In the two years following, I received that same email several times. A few months ago, when the election was heating up, I received the objectionable email from a close family friend (who I think secretly hopes that he can drag me over to the political right). And then, unsurprisingly, here shortly before Christmas, I’ve received yet another copy of the message. Each of the versions of the email that I’ve received are virtually identical with only little bits and pieces changing from one to the next. An online search will reveal several versions of the same general chain message. However, all of the versions of the chain email have warped and expanded the original commentary on which they are based and which they quote.

So finally we get to the actual content of the original commentary and the chain email that it spawned. In late 2005, actor/game show host (and now advocate for creationism and the position that belief in evolution was a root cause of the Holocaust) Ben Stein gave a commentary on CBS Sunday Morning about Nick & Jessica [2011 edit: That would be Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson for those who can’t remember 2005…] and Christmas (sorry the video cannot be embedded). Mr. Stein posted a version of that commentary on his website (it is worth noting that the commentary on the website is subtly different from that which he gave on CBS Sunday Morning, but the differences are essentially non-substantive). Here is the full text of the commentary as posted on Mr. Stein’s website:

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don’t know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise’s wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It’s not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

I disagree with some of Mr. Stein’s thoughts (though not about Nick and Jessica or Tom Cruise…), but don’t really care what he has to say. If those comments were the extent of the chain email I would probably have just hit the delete key. Unfortunately, someone, somewhere, decided to embellish Mr. Stein’s comments and tried to make them into much more than they really were. As embellished, Mr. Stein’s comments are then used to try to advance both the simple position that Mr. Stein was commenting about but also to advocate on behalf of prayer in public schools and to attack those of us who support separation of church and state. And, as I mentioned previously, not only are many of the additional points not from Mr. Stein; they are also factually inaccurate. Yet because they appear to have the imprimatur of being spoken by an “expert” (or at least a third-rate celebrity; some people seem to have trouble telling the difference), they are taken at face value. (I find it troubling that Mr. Stein has not added an addendum to the page with his original commentary noting that he is not responsible for the additional thoughts attributed to him that are so readily found floating around the Internet.) Moreover, and more importantly, because Mr. Stein is Jewish (and “confesses” as much in his commentary), his comments (including the embellished additions) are used as a club against Jews (like me) who have a different viewpoint.

So, below is the full text of the chain email that caused me to become so exercised in the first place. As you will see, it is fairly lengthy. Thus, my response (the one that I’ve kept in my drafts folder for two years now), with some minor corrections and edits, but with the original tone largely intact, will be in Part 2 of this post. It is also worth noting that some versions of the chain email completely omit the portions that I've posted in green (and change the subsequent reference to “Nick and Jessica” to “celebrities” [2011 edit: I’m actually surprised that I haven’t received a version of the chain email replacing Nick and Jessica with some kind of Kardashian reference] while others add the portion that I’ve posted in blue.

Something not to laugh about.

If they know of him at all, many folks think Ben Stein is just a quirky actor/comedian who talks in a monotone. He’s also a very intelligent attorney who knows how to put ideas and words together in such a way as to sway juries and make people think clearly.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important?

I don’t know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are.

If this is what it means to be no longer young. It’s not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crèche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution, and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica [alternately: celebrities] and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that’s a sign that I'm getting old, too.

But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her “How could God let something like this Happen?” (regarding Katrina)

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”

In light of recent events … terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about and we said OK.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don’t want any bad publicity, and we surely don’t want to be sued (there’s a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.). And we said OK.

Then someone said, let’s let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won’t even have to tell their parents. And we said OK.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they’re going to do it anyway, let’s give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won’t have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK.

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn’t matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

Then someone said let’s print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body. And we said OK.

And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet. And we said OK, they’re entitled to free speech.

Then the entertainment industry said, let’s make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let’s record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it’s just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with “WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.”

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through email and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it … no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

Before moving on to my response (in Part 2), take a moment and comment on Mr. Stein's original commentary and the embellished thoughts attributed to him.

Part 2

Now that you’ve had a chance to read (in Part 1 of this post) the original commentary and embellished chain email, it is time to turn to my response. Some of my friends and family have already read this, but after receiving yet another version of the Ben Stein chain email, I decided that it was finally time to share. As you will see, my response was written as a direct response to the woman who first posted the chain email to the mailing list. Rather than try to rewrite my response, I’ve simply removed specific references to her but left the overall tone and message intact.

°°°

I have a number of grave problems with the “Ben Stein this is great…” (some versions are entitled “Ben Stein Food for thought”) email that is being circulated. On most days, I might have just brushed my concerns aside and not worried about it. But at the time that I first read this email, I was trying to figure out how to answer the concerns of my very sensitive then-7-year old daughter [2011 update: She’s now 12 going on 19…] who was upset that she had to listen to “Santa stories” in her public school classroom [2011 update: And who is now upset about being required to sing overtly religious songs in her school’s choir class] and who didn't want to make a Christmas stocking in art class (and ironically, the same week that I’m posting this response, I’ve had to deal with concerns from that same daughter, now 9, who was upset that she was being made to draw images of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the Three Wise Men in her elementary school Spanish class). It was in this frame of mind that I first received the email bemoaning the absence of God from our schools and public life. Thus, I experienced a visceral response that prompted my original drafting of this essay.

As you will see, the separation of church and state is a major issue for me; perhaps it is simply because I am a part of a religious minority or because I have been on the receiving end of proselytization and religious bigotry. In any event, I have long been an advocate for the separation of church and state and even lobby the Indiana General Assembly on behalf of the Jewish community of Indianapolis on church-state issues (and let me reiterate again that what I say on this blog and in this essay in particular I am saying for myself and am not speaking on behalf of anyone else or any agency with whom I am affiliate). I have no problem with people expressing their faith. Nor do I have a problem if a business elects to follow a religious path or erect a religious symbol. And obviously, I have no problem with a church or other house of worship taking steps to foster its religious viewpoint.

However, I do have a problem when the government becomes enmeshed in religion, especially when the government — my government — tries to tell me that I must pray, how or to whom I must pray, or which religious holidays or religious beliefs meet with “official” approval (or, conversely, chooses to ignore other equally valued religious beliefs). I have a problem when others are not satisfied with prayer in their homes, churches, or other private places and, instead, feel the need to force their prayer upon me, whether or not I agree with their religious beliefs, especially when they want to force their prayer and religious beliefs upon me through the government. And I really have a problem when people want to force those religious viewpoints upon my children in the public schools. I am old enough to make my own religious decisions; I know enough about religion to know what I do and don’t believe; I am not worried about peer pressure; and I am confident enough in myself to stand up and so “no” when asked to do that which violates my sincerely held beliefs. But my now 9-year-old twins should never have to bow down to public pressure to believe a certain way, be made to feel different or an outsider, or be forced to consider their own religious beliefs all because someone else is not satisfied with prayer in their own home or church. I’m curious to know how comfortable you are that your children would be able to handle proselytization from another religious faith, especially if your child were confronted by questions or accusations that go to the core of your religious beliefs or involved questions of religious understanding to which your child had not yet been exposed.

Before delving further into some of the issues raised in the email, however, there are few important preliminary points that must be addressed:

First, the email begins by attributing the text to Ben Stein (and, I must say, that it is getting somewhat tiring having the opinions of a single Jew thrown in my face, almost as if because one Jew believes a certain way, those of us who disagree must be wrong; I suspect that many Christians would take offense if I were to pick and choose the words of a few particular Christians and use those words to paint broadly the viewpoint of all Christians or to challenge the legitimacy of contrary opinions held by other Christians [2011 update: The tactic of offering the minority opinion expressed by a single Jew has become very common both in church-state issues and matters pertaining to Israel and is often referred to by the “as a Jew” sobriquet [as in, “as a Jew, my opinion on issue X…”]). Anyway, while Mr. Stein did, indeed, make some of the comments attributed to him in the email, his comments end before the paragraph that begins with “In light of the many jokes…” See Mr. Stein’s website (or above) for the full text of his comments (which, by the way, differ slightly from those that he actually gave on CBS Sunday Morning).

The email then goes on with a series of other statements and quotations (without recognizing that these statements or quotations were not made or quoted by Mr. Stein). The first of these references an interview between Jane Clayson and Rev. Billy Graham’s daughter Anne Graham (Lotz). The email suggests that this interview and Ms. Lotz’s response were “regarding Katrina”. However, considering the fact that the interview took place on September 13, 2001, it obviously was not in reference to Katrina (and, just as obviously, was in reference to the events of September 11, 2001). Moreover, the statements the email attributes to Ms. Lotz, while close in substance, are not accurate and include far more than what she actually stated (in particular the numerous additional statements noted in blue in Part 1). For additional information, see She Said He Said at BreakTheChain. One of the dangers of the Internet is the ease with which people can be misquoted, quotations taken out of context, or entire quotations fabricated, and then those mistakes are given a life of their own. Before attributing statements, we owe it both to those whom we are quoting and to those whom we want to influence to check the source material for accuracy. Similarly, before forwarding a chain letter (or email), it behooves us all to check the accuracy of the statements therein; after all, when we send that email we are, in essence, putting our name and reputation behind the content of that which we distribute.

The email also goes on to suggest that “recent events” (such as terrorist attacks and school shootings) began when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (her name is actually spelled Madalyn Murray O’Hair) complained that she didn't want “prayer in our schools”. For information on Ms. O’Hair, see the entry for her at Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it is a decent starting point…). In fact, Ms. O’Hair complained of coercive prayer in public schools in the early 1960s! And, by an 8–1 majority, the United States Supreme Court agreed that it was improper for coercive prayer or bible study in public schools. More information on the decisions can be found on the Wikipedia pages discussing Abbington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale. It is worth noting that four of the Justices on the Supreme Court that decided those cases were appointed by a Republican President. Yet Ms. O’Hair is somehow being blamed for Islamic terrorists attacking America. Timothy McVeigh, perhaps … but the lack of coercive Christian prayer in American public schools does not seem to be one of the things that has sparked fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to attack America. Generally speaking, we Jews don’t believe in prayer in public schools, yet I haven’t seen many Jewish children engaging in school shootings or terrorist attacks; nor, for that matter, have I seen adherents to other religious faiths behind the trigger in school shootings, either.

The email next furthers the foregoing argument by suggesting that America is in trouble because we no longer read the Bible in schools and it is the Bible that teaches “thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself”. I guess, that we are to understand that, if we still taught the Bible in our public schools, we wouldn't kill or steal and we would love each other. First, just because our children don’t read the Bible in public schools doesn’t mean that we can’t (or don’t) teach our children not to kill or steal or can’t or don’t teach them to love one another. [2011 update: Note that it would also appear that the “love your neighbor” admonition only applies if your neighbor is the right kind of neighbor; certainly, you shouldn’t love your Muslim neighbor or your homosexual neighbor, right?] And even when children did read the Bible in public schools, bad things happened: Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from voting or forced them to sit at the back of the bus (and sometimes left them hanging from a tree), but I would be willing to wager that supporters of those laws prayed quite a bit. Murder and burglary did not suddenly start the day that prayers ceased in the public schools; it seems that those societal ills have been with us (and with all of humanity) from the beginning of time, whether or not people prayed (and irrespective of the type of prayer or the deity to which those prayers is offered). It is simply too easy to say that things are bad and to place blame accordingly without empirical evidence supporting the allegation.

Next the email implies that people have been wrong to follow the advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock and appears to ridicule Dr. Spock’s advice because, according to the email, Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide (as if to suggest that if Dr. Spock’s own son committed suicide, then Dr. Spock’s child-rearing advice must have been wrong). While this suggestion is, itself, almost certainly unfair, it is wholly misplaced given that Dr. Spock’s son did not kill himself. Rather, Dr. Spock’s grandson killed himself after a long battle with mental illness (for more information, see Doctored Spock and the entry for Dr. Spock on Wikipedia).

[I added this paragraph after receiving some of the alternate versions of the chain email that added the text that was not in the original version.] Some versions of the email then proceed through a litany of social issues in the buildup to the general premise that the “world is going to hell” as a result of American society’s decisions on those social issues. The authors of the email want us to believe America is in danger and that God is angry because we oppose corporal punishment of our children by teachers and principals, because we support a woman’s right to choose and oppose certain restrictions on that right, because we support giving condoms so that kids who are sexually active don’t become pregnant or get sexually transmitted diseases, because we support the notion of privacy, especially within the confines of our own bedrooms, because we allow pornography to exist, because we allow child pornography (I’m stumped by this one given that child pornography is not only illegal, but it is not protected by the First Amendment and mere possession of child porn is punishable), and because some segments of the entertainment industry espouse viewpoints that may not conform to mainstream beliefs and practices. I could just as easily turn the entire discussion around and argue that America is in danger and God is angry because we don’t take care to properly feed the poor and house the homeless, because we allow children to go without proper health care and make some of the elderly choose between food or medication, because we glorify greed and allow the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer, because we use violence rather than diplomacy and include torture as an accepted way of getting information, because we don’t uphold our own democratic traditions and allow our civil rights to be trampled, because we are willing to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious beliefs or their skin color or their national origin or their sexual orientation, because we use the airwaves to espouse hate and bigotry and to talk about our political opponents as the enemy, because we allow our environment (“God's green earth?”) to be polluted, and because we are egotistical and/or stupid enough to suggest that natural disasters have anything whatsoever to do with human thought.

Finally, the email offers a number of statements that repeat the general allegation that the “world is going to hell” because “public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace”.

Which leads me back to the main point. Those of us who feel strongly about the separation of church and state do not suggest, not even for a moment, that children are not or should not be allowed to pray in public schools. Nor do we argue against public “discussion” of God, gods, or religion. Rather, we argue against public prayer. We argue against government sponsorship or endorsement of particular religions or particular religious viewpoints. We argue that our children should not be compelled to pray in public schools and that the government should not compel a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. If a child wants to pray in school, he or she can do so any time, whether on the bus, at recess, at lunch, or even quietly seated at his or her desk. But the government should not tell my child (or your child, for that matter) that the child must pray (and certainly not with a particular prayer or to a particular deity).

And before you say, “but without prayer in public schools, our country has gone to hell”, just consider for a moment what you are really saying: Either, you are saying that we, as parents, have failed at teaching values to our children (because, if the schools aren’t teaching values and children aren’t learning those values, then who else is there to blame but the parents who are not properly teaching and raising their children?) or you are saying that the U.S. should be a religious country in which minority religions are merely tolerated. As to this latter point, remember that the U.S. was initially settled by many people looking to escape religious persecution and bigotry. More importantly, which religious viewpoint should be the dominant one? Assuming that Christianity would be the “national” religion, would that be from a Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, or other viewpoint? Who’s interpretation of scripture would be correct? Who would get to pick which prayers are to be said in our public schools?

For that matter, which Bible would we be using? The Jewish Bible (the Old Testament)? The Catholic Bible? The King James Bible? It is worth noting that the different versions of the Bible have very different texts and meanings. Just consider the Ten Commandments, about which so much has been made recently. Many people want the Ten Commandments posted in the schools and courts. But which version would that be? A simple Google search will reveal a number of examples of different versions of the Ten Commandments. Consider simply the commandment quoted in the email that “Thou shalt not kill”. The use of the word “kill” finds its way into certain translations, while other translations (in particular those that do not go through an intervening Greek and/or Latin translation) usually use the word “murder” instead (and just consider the difference in meaning between those terms). Or, consider that some versions of the Ten Commandments do not include a prohibition against graven images. Even the Bible itself has several versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). For more discussion of the differences and meanings, see the Wikipedia entry on the Ten Commandments.

And which Biblical lessons would we be teaching? I suppose that we should teach how to place a proper monetary value upon our daughters when we sell them into slavery (as permitted by Exodus 21:7). We should teach men how to recognize when a woman is having her menstrual cycle so that we can avoid touching them (as prohibited by Leviticus 15:1924). Perhaps we will need to revisit our teaching of the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Civil Rights movement; after all, Leviticus 25:44 states that we may possess slaves. We will also need to settle once and for all whether Friday, Saturday, or Sunday is the true Sabbath (just when exactly did God tell Christians to move the Sabbath from Saturday [the last day of the week on every calendar that I’ve looked at recently] to Sunday [the first day of the week]; after all, I thought God rested after finishing creation not before getting started)? Why is this important? Because Exodus 35:2 requires that we put to death those who work on the Sabbath. It seems best that we know which day not to work on and schools would be a good place to teach that. We will also have to be sure that our schools don’t serve any kind of shellfish as eating it is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10). I guess, too, that the hippie movement will be forced to make a comeback as our schools should probably teach that trimming a man’s hair, especially around the temples, is forbidden (Leviticus 19:27). I am worried about forcing schools to stop playing football, but given that touching the skin of a dead pig makes a person unclean (Leviticus 11:68) it would seem, at bare minimum, to require that we switch to a synthetic ball. For that matter, ham sandwiches and hot dogs will certainly have to go (Leviticus 11:68) and cheeseburgers will be a thing of the past (Exodus 23:19). And I can’t wait to see how school dress codes are modified to take into consideration the prohibition against wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread; alas, no more cotton/polyester blends (Leviticus 19:19). And I’m particularly looking forward to the part of the curriculum that deals with the proper way to make animal sacrifices.

And before you say that we don’t need to follow all of those commandments from the Bible, please tell me just who it is, precisely, that gets to decide which commandments we keep and which ones we ignore; which commandments still have a place in the modern world and which should be relegated to the past? [2011 update: It seems that this has become even more relevant in recent years as we hear point point to the Bible to support their belief that homosexuality and abortion are sins but ignore other sins described with even greater clarity.] I don’t recall God saying that we get to pick and choose the rules that we want to follow. But then I guess that will be part of the school curriculum as well.

And how are we to reconcile all of this with Jesus’ own prescriptions against public prayer:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men … when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…

(Mathew 6:56). It would seem to me that coercive (or even optional, but organized) prayer in the public schools would violate this admonition. But maybe our new Biblical public school curriculum will include proper instruction on how and where and to whom to pray, too.

Perhaps we can settle these questions in the civilized way that Europeans have used over the millennia: War. Consider, for a moment, the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) in which all of Europe was embroiled in a war over competing versions of Christianity (Catholics v. Lutherans v. Calvinists). By some estimates, millions of people died during this particularly bloody war. European history is filled with examples of war over religious doctrine and dogma. The Spanish Inquisition was a particularly pleasant way of addressing religious differences. And don’t forget Henry VIII who created an entirely new church just because he wanted a divorce. More recently, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants have seen fit to blow each other up. Christians aren’t alone in their use of violence to resolve religious disputes. Just look at the violence between Muslims and Hindus over Kashmir, between Muslims, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox in the Balkans, not to mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, if we were to decide that blowing each other up was the best way to resolve our own petty religious differences, then we wouldn’t be much different from the Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims presently engaged in their own conflict in Iraq in which wholesale kidnapping, torture, and slaughter is apparently an acceptable way to address religious differences.

Consider the following statement from ReligiousTolerance:

Religion is a unique force in society. It motivates individuals to do both good and evil. Historically, it has promoted: an end to slavery, racial integration, equal rights for women, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. It has motivated individuals to create massive support services for the poor, the sick, the hurting, and the broken. Conversely, it has been used to justify slavery, racial segregation, oppression of women, discrimination against homosexuals, genocides, exterminations of minorities, and other horrendous evils.

Religion motivates some to dedicate their lives to help the poor and needy. (e.g. Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa.) It drives others to exterminate as many “heretics” as they can. Consider the mass murders and genocides in Bosnia, East Timor, Indonesia, India, Kosovo, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tibet, etc.

Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others.

Americans love to stand up and say how proud they are of their country and the freedoms and liberties that America stands for. Yet, when those freedoms and liberties challenge us, how many of us are still ready to stand up and support the rights of those with whom they disagree? You pray the way you want, I’ll pray the way I want (if I want), and we’ll leave the schools to teach our children about math and reading and science (and let’s not even get started on the whole issue of creationism or “intelligent design”).

Do we honestly believe that simply offering a public prayer that conforms to a particular religious viewpoint will suddenly cause all children to be good, that burglars and murderers will suddenly repent, that terrorists will leave us alone, and hurricanes will limit their destruction to Mexico or Cuba? Just think about it: Canada allows gay marriage, but it doesn’t appear that God has punished Canada. For that matter Massachusetts also allows gay marriage, but Hurricane Katrina landed far to the south of Boston. [2011 update: And Iowa hasn’t disappeared into a giant sinkhole but Texas has been hit by terrible drought and fires.] So maybe, just maybe, the fact that we don’t allow prayer in public schools has little or nothing to do with how God views our country. Or, perhaps, if God is angry at the U.S., it is because we have not lived up to the challenge of always acting as we should when we support dictators, don’t give enough money to help impoverished nations, continue to allow the environment to be destroyed, rely upon torture to obtain information, and continue to use God and religion as an excuse for political viewpoints that demonize those with whom we disagree. Or maybe, God just wants us to allow gays to marry.

Just consider my own childhood in which the principal at my public elementary school used a derogatory term to describe my mother after I (a somewhat precocious 5th-grader) expressed discomfort at singing “Silent Night” in the school’s Christmas program. When I asked the music teacher if I could simply remain silent during that song, I was given the choice of singing (and not just “mumbling”, I was reminded) or quitting the choir. Or consider that Good Friday was a recognized absence for the Catholic children, but Jews had to call in “sick” to be excused for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. Or consider that every student at our public high school had to sit through a performance of Handel's “Messiah” by the school choir (and rise at the appropriate moment). I was told that if I did not attend the performance, I would be suspended. When I later asked the music teacher why that particular piece of music was chosen, she claimed that it was due to the beautiful harmonies and not for its religious content. So, I asked her why it was not included in the spring music program and she replied that it “would lose its meaning”. I could go on and on with examples of the government, through the public school system, attempting to impose a particular religious viewpoint upon me. It was clear to me, as I grew up, that because I was not Christian, I was different and something less than a full participant in my own country. That is wrong. That is not American. I am no more a guest here than any other citizen, whether a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Wiccan, or any of the myriad other religions that make up America. And an atheist is no less a citizen than any believer. I am not a guest and my country should not make me feel that I am anything less than on equal footing with every other citizen, no matter my religion (or lack thereof).

And finally, back to Ben Stein. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Stein that it doesn’t bother me when people refer to Christmas trees as such. Nor am I particularly bothered if someone wishes me a “Merry Christmas”. My wife even likes to listen to some Christmas music (I have allegedly been caught humming “Frosty the Snowman”) and our family will occasionally drive around and look at our neighbors’ Christmas lights. However, while I am not offended, I do wonder what is so wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” as that term is fully inclusive of all people, of whatever religion (or none; the phrase includes New Year’s Day and Thanksgiving and maybe even the winter solstice) rather than being exclusive. So, while I have no problem with Wal-Mart deciding that its greeters should say “Merry Christmas” (can anybody explain why Wal-Mart needs to greet me?), I also have no problem giving my business to Target where diversity is welcomed and inclusiveness is valued [2011 update: well, except of course, diversity or inclusiveness involving … gasp … gays]. That said, I am offended when someone who knows me says “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Holidays” because that tells me that the person doesn’t care enough to be considerate toward me. If I know that someone is Christian, I will try to remember to say “Merry Christmas”. Otherwise, I usually say “Happy Holidays”; I want to be inclusive and be sure that my greeting is appropriate for everyone (but, I’ll acknowledge that when an acquaintance who knows that I’m Jewish wishes me a “Merry Christmas” I am likely to respond with “Happy Hanukkah” if I’m in a bah humbug sort of mood).

Like Mr. Stein, I am not offended by a manger scene. The church on the corner near my home has a lovely living nativity each year. I am, however, offended, when my government chooses to erect a manger scene or allows one to be erected on public property. Why exactly does the government need to erect a manger or to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Don’t churches and private homeowners (not to mention stores and businesses) do a sufficient job of that? The hue and cry about the “attack” on Christmas would make one think that those of us who favor the separation of church and state want to prohibit churches and individuals from showing their faith and devotion when that simply is not the case at all. By all means, hang up your Christmas lights, decorate your tree, erect your crèche. Just do it at your home or at your business or at your church and not on government land and do it without government tax dollars. Is that really too much to ask?

I also agree with Mr. Stein that America is not an “explicitly atheist country”. I am unfamiliar with that claim. Instead, I believe that America is a country that is (or should be) neutral toward religion. America is not atheist any more than it is Christian or Jewish or Muslim or tied to the earth and ancestor spirit faiths of Native Americans. America is all of those things. America is made up of hundreds of different religions (and of those who have either no particular faith or who don’t believe in a god or gods), each of which may be a valuable contribution to the fabric that makes our country (and each of which may also have negative influences as well). But that does not mean that America — as a country and through its institutions — should show favoritism toward any particular religious belief or form of worship (or lack thereof). To exclude coercive prayer from public life, to recognize that not everyone shares the same religious views and beliefs, to value diversity (and the rewards and challenges that diversity can bring) is not “atheist”. But it is American.

Happy Holidays.

°°°

Well, I did warn you that this would be long. If you’ve stayed with me the whole way, thanks. If not … well, I guess that you wouldn’t be reading this would you? Anyway, as I’m sure you can tell by now, the issues that I discussed above are very important to me and about which I tend to get very exercised.

Has Congress Simply Gone Batshit Crazy?

Sometimes you have to wonder…

But let me back up…

Imagine one of the following scenarios:

• You are a novelist and you’re talking on the phone to your friend about an idea for your next book that involves an al-Qaeda terrorist plot; or
• You’ve recently returned from an overseas business trip where you had a business meeting with a Middle-Eastern eastern man and wanted to buy equipment your company makes; or
• Your church group makes arrangements to have a local Muslim imam come to speak to your church about events in the Middle East; or
• Your ex-business partner, who is really good with Photoshop, posts on Facebook a picture of your head superimposed on the body of a terrorist holding a gun.

Now, imagine, that one day you hear a loud noise outside your front door and suddenly an Army tank rolls up into your front yard as flash-bang grenades are thrown into your house and a squad of the Army’s elite Delta Force charges in and takes you into custody … for suspicion of terrorism.

Now given that this is America you might almost be tempted to laugh at this situation. After all, the military has no jurisdiction to engage in law enforcement within the United States and, perhaps more importantly, as soon as you make your phone call to your lawyer and he sees the “evidence” gathered against you, this should all go away pretty quickly. Right?

Um, no. Not in our America. At least not anymore.

You see, Congress is so worried about the threat of terrorism that they are intending to pass legislation that requires that terrorism suspects be remanded to military custody and will condone the indefinite detention, without trial and without access to an attorney, of those so detained. That detention can continue until hostilities — in other words, the “war on terrorism” — has ended.

No due process. No right to confront your accuser. No right to a jury of your peers. No right to a trial or counsel. And maybe even no right to be free from torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Maybe you’ll even get to spend time in sunny Guantanamo, Cuba.

President Obama has threatened to veto this bill (it is part of the 600+ page Defense Appropriations bill) if it comes to his desk. But just so that you realize that this bill is likely to pass and is not flying under the radar, just yesterday, a proposed amendment (sponsored by Sen. Feinstein [D-California]) to limit the indefinite detention of American citizens to only those American citizens captured outside of the United States failed by a vote of 55-45. Most (but not all) Democrats voted for the amendment; all but three Republicans voted against it.

I’ve heard over and over the fears that President Obama is a “dictator” or that he “plans to take away people’s guns”. I can’t understand how people who can express that fear can, at the same time, contemplate giving the military the power to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely and without trial.

Now go back to my original scenarios and let me add one more:

• You are a member of the United States Congress (or even a candidate) and your platform includes proposals to do away with indefinite civilian detentions and to decrease the military’s budget. You know that this position is not popular in the military…

When you are taken into custody how will you prove that your arrest was politically motivated and based on trumped up or non-existent evidence? Remember, the military can hold you essentially forever without a trial, a lawyer, or the right to see the evidence against you.

If this bill passes, we are that much closer to being nothing more than a military dictatorship that pays lip service to democracy and civilian control. And we are that much closer to being a country that has a Constitution with important rights granted to its citizens … that are ignored.

Is indefinite detention by the military, without trial, the sort of nation that the Founding Fathers had when they signed the Declaration of Independence and later adopted the Constitution? No, I don’t think so either.

Call you members of Congress and tell them that you would prefer not to live in a country that permits its military to arrest and indefinitely detain people.

Sorry. Busy Again.

Once again, I apologize for the dearth of posts. I've been busy. And it seems that the things that I have tried to write about ... well, I keep getting bogged down and throwing away that bit of lunchtime work. Oh, well.

And besides, is anybody reading what I write?

No Elections Today

I voted today. Well, actually, that’s not true. I tried to vote today. I showed up at my usual polling place but there was nobody there.

In Carmel, Indiana, today, there wasn’t an election. Here’s what the Voter Guide from The Indianapolis Star shows residents of Carmel:

So why wasn’t there an election? This past spring the Indiana General Assembly revised Indiana Code § 3-10-6-7.5(b) to read as follows:

An election may not be held for a municipal office if: (1) there is only one (1) nominee for the office or only one (1) person has filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office under IC 3-8-2-2.5; and (2) no person has filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office under IC 3-8-2-2.5 that results in a contest for election to the same municipal office.

Indiana Code § 3-12-5-3 closes the hole by providing:

Whenever a candidate for a local office described in section 2 of this chapter is unopposed, the circuit court clerk shall, upon demand of the candidate, certify the candidate in the same manner as if elected to the office.

Look, I understand that it costs money to hold an election. And I’m sympathetic to the argument that there is no reason to spend money to hold elections when the outcome is a certainty. But still…

Voting is one of our most important civic functions. Do we really want to cancel voting entirely?

Plus it seems to me that voting, even in uncontested races, still sends messages from voters to candidates. For example, think of a situation in which a voter would be voting for a mayor, a city council representative for the voter’s district, and two at-large council members. If there are no contested races, then shouldn’t each candidate receive the same number of votes? But of course, that isn’t what happens. For many reasons, voters may choose not to cast a ballot for certain candidates. Imagine the message sent in the preceding hypothetical if the mayor, district candidate, and one at-large candidate all receive about the same number of votes, but the other at-large candidate receives only about 50% of the votes. Why did voters choose to withhold votes from that candidate?

And think about this: This bill was signed into law and became effective after the May primary elections. Might voters (or candidates) have done anything differently had they known that they might not even have the right to cast a vote in November?

Query, too, why a potential write-in candidate must register? Imagine a situation where a candidate for a particular office is unchallenged but has done something to anger voters in the weeks leading up to the election. Under the current law, the candidate will simply be certified as the winner. Shouldn’t voters be able to go to the poll and write in the name of a new candidate?

What if a candidate dies after being selected in the primary?

And don’t we want to teach our kids that voting is important? It seems to me that canceling the election because of a lack of choices sends the wrong message. This is especially true for kids who’ve turned 18 since the primary and who are being deprived of the opportunity to cast a ballot for the first time.

In a democracy (well, ok, a representative democracy), doesn’t it just feel … well … wrong to declare someone the “winner” when no election is held? Then again, given that Republicans are looking to make voting more difficult and to disenfranchise voters, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they’ve passed a bill do away with voting entirely. I think that this law should be repealed. It shouldn’t matter if a particular candidate is running uncontested. We should still have elections. Because, as we’ve all heard over the years, elections matter. But it isn’t just the outcome that matters; it is the process, too. Elections matter.

Cain’s 9-9-9 and the Drive to Buy Used Goods

One of the components of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is a 9% national sales tax. This sales tax would be on top of any sales tax imposed by a state. Now, as I understand it, this tax would apply to the sale of all new goods and services. I’ve heard Cain say, on several occasions, that one way that people could avoid the sales tax would be to adjust their behavior and purchase used goods instead. And that is what I want to look at.

First, let’s consider the impact of 9-9-9 on the housing market. Just consider the disparate impact upon the purchase price of a new house as compared to the purchase price of an existing (used) house when the 9% sales tax on the new house is factored into the price. By way of simple example, a new $200,000 house would suddenly cost $18,000 more while an existing house would not be subject to that increase. Hmm. Seems to me that residential home builders, already struggling in this economy, would very likely be virtually driven from business. This is especially true in the low-end production home market. The people paying builders to build million dollar mansions can probably afford to absorb and pay that tax; but the family on a tight budget looking to buy an inexpensive production home may have just been priced out of the American dream of home ownership. And the builders who rely on building subdivisions full of cookie cutter but affordable houses will have had their businesses ripped out from under them. How many more construction workers will be out of a job? But I guess that there will be incentive for people to buy and rehab older existing homes…

Or what about the auto industry? We already pay sales tax on cars (and did you know that you pay sales tax even if you lease your car?). But let’s just think about what an additional 9% sales tax would mean. Right now, in Indiana, the sales tax is 7%. So a car with a sticker price of $30,000 actually costs $32,100. If we add on an additional 9% to that $30,000, suddenly that new car will cost $34,800 (or an additional $2,700 over the current post-tax cost). How many fewer cars will be sold with that sort of built in price increase? And as fewer cars are sold, how many car salesmen will be out of a job? More importantly (perhaps), what will happen to the automotive manufacturing industry? If the demand for new cars goes down, won’t that have an adverse impact on the manufacturing sector? Won’t the new sales tax create an incentive for people to buy older cars? Now a new industry may develop to help keep older cars, long since out of warranty, in good condition, but is that a good trade off? Do we really want our roads to look like Cuba’s with mostly old, semi-functional cars? And remember, it is Herman Cain himself who has suggested that consumers adjust their habits by buying used merchandise.

What about other forms of retail sales? I suppose that consignment stores would see a substantial uptick in sales, but at what cost to clothing stores selling new clothes?

And consider one other important element to all of this: There are some goods where buying used simply isn’t practical. It’s hard to buy used milk. Used tires probably aren’t very safe. And I’m pretty sure that Godfather’s Pizza doesn’t sell used pizzas. Joking aside, where this really becomes a problem is on its impact upon those who are least able to absorb these additional costs. It should be obvious, but the poor pay a much larger percent of their income on food and other essentials. But under Cain’s plan, not only would the poor be forced to pay income tax that they probably don’t pay now (though, to be fair, apparently they would no longer pay payroll taxes), but they would also be forced to pay more for food and other essentials. Go tell a poor family … or an elderly woman who already can’t afford her medicine … that the cost of those essentials is going to go up by 9% and see how that will impact their lives.

Cain has suggested that the sales tax wouldn’t seem like a big deal because prices would come down because of decreased taxes imposed upon those who manufacture and sell goods. Do you really believe that? Bank of America made $6 billion last quarter; did they drop their fees to lower costs? Of course not. Do you think that the drug companies would decide to lower the cost of drugs? I certainly doubt it. A lowering in the cost of production will be passed on, primarily, to shareholders. Most likely, the only decrease in price would be to compete with a competitor who chooses to lower prices, but if none of the businesses in a particular market decide to pass any savings along, then prices would not drop appreciably.

Oh, and just to game the system a bit. Cain’s plan also provides that businesses don’t pay the sales tax on things that they purchase. Hmm. Then it seems to me that businesses could purchase all sorts of things for their employees and I’m sure that smart people can find a way to avoid those purchases being classified as income (especially if, under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, we’re not filling out complicated tax returns anymore).

Finally, as I understand the plan, the 9% sales tax would also apply to services. Think what that would mean for the cost to see a doctor, the cost of insurance, the cost of a lawyer, or even the cost of the kid down the street who mows your lawn. All of those services would now incur a 9% tax. It seems that healthcare (and remember, Cain has pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act) would be hit really hard. Insurance, whether from an employer or privately purchased would be 9% more expensive and so would the cost to see the doctor and purchase a medicine. Given how expensive both health insurance and medical treatment are already, this seems like it would really cause a severe and negative impact. And given that an enormous percentage of healthcare costs are paid by the elderly who are no longer paying payroll taxes, then this 9% increase in costs could prove devastating.

Perhaps used medicine will become popular.

Societal Duties

As I’ve listened to some of the Republican debates and read various articles, one thing that has become clear to me is that the modern Republican Party, influenced strongly by the Tea Party, seems to willfully, if not joyously, abandoned the “compassion” which President George W. Bush tried to wrap around his brand of conservatism. Today, when I listen to candidates like Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul (in particular), some of the other candidates (more generally), or some of the right-wing talking heads, I see a brand of conservatism that is all about personal responsibility and success with almost no attention paid to benefits of a social safety net or even social responsibility.

This point of view has been manifested in many ways, from the situation a year or so ago (was it longer?) when a fire department wouldn’t put out a house fire because they family hadn’t paid for fire protection, to opposition to the DREAM Act to allow children of illegal immigrants to get an education and a path toward citizenship, to the “let him die” moment at a Republican debate (in response to what to do with a man without health insurance who suffered catastrophic injury), to suggestions that efforts to keep the auto industry and banks from failing were wrong, to Mitt Romney’s recent suggestion that we should let the mortgage crisis “bottom out” and let investors buy foreclosed homes, to arguments about tax policy.

So all of this got me thinking: What obligations do we, as members of a society, have to one another? I’m not talking about what the law says that we must do; rather, I’m talking about the general social compact that allows our civilization and society to function. I think most of us are pretty clear on what we should not do to one another; I can’t kill your or sell your child into slavery, I can’t burn your house down and claim your land as mine, and I can’t tell malicious lies about you (at least not without being expected to pay some kind of price for doing so). But what about the inverse? What are we expected to do to help one another, if anything?

I have my own ideas, but for the time being, I’m more interested in throwing out some scenarios and seeing what people think. And remember, my question is not what the law imposes on us, but rather, what we as a society think it appropriate to impose upon one another. So think about these questions (and I’m sure I could have come up with a far lengthier list than this, but hey, I do have to work sometime…) and post a comment with your thoughts:

1. If I see my neighbor’s house on fire, do I have an obligation to call 911? Do I have an obligation to see if anyone is in the house and try to help them get out?
2. If it’s raining or cold and I see my neighbor’s child apparently locked out, do I have an obligation to invite the child into my home? Do I have an obligation to try to call the child’s parents?
3. If I look out my upstairs window and see that my neighbor’s gutter is full of leaves (and my vantage is different than what my neighbor can see when he walks around his house), do I have an obligation to tell him?
4. If I see my neighbor’s car stuck in the snow in front of his driveway, do I have an obligation to help him dig it out or push it?
5. If I see my neighbor’s child do something dangerous or I see him drinking or smoking, do I have an obligation to tell my neighbor?
6. If I see my neighbor’s child doing something wrong, do I have an obligation to say something to the child?
7. If I see my neighbor’s child throw a ball into my fenced yard, do I have an obligation to go get the ball? Do I have an obligation to let the neighbor’s child come into my yard to get his ball?
8. If I know my neighbor is out of town and, late one night I see someone prowling around my neighbor’s house, do I have an obligation to call the police? Do I have an obligation to try to scare the prowler away?
9. If I learn that my neighbor is having an affair, do I have an obligation to say something to his wife or do I have an obligation to keep silent?
10. If I suspect that my neighbor cheated on his taxes, do I have an obligation to report him to the IRS?
11. If I see my neighbor shoveling snow from his driveway and I have a snowblower, do I have an obligation to either let him borrow it or offer to help him with his driveway?
12. And do your answers to any of the preceding questions change if you and your neighbor despise one another?
13. When I see a panhandler by the side of the road, do I have an obligation to give the panhandler any money?
14. If my parent or sibling is sick but can’t afford medical care, do I have an obligation to help them pay for the care that they need? What if, instead of my parent or sibling, it is my first cousin? What if it’s my third cousin? What if that cousin has parents or siblings who can help, but won’t? Does that absolve me of any obligation that I might have? What if it isn’t a family member at all, but just a friend or a neighbor?
15. If I see a little old lady trying to put a spare tire on her car, do I have an obligation to stop and help? What if, instead of a little old lady, it is a big strapping dude? Where is the dividing line between which people I need to help with the tire and which people I can leave to solve the problem on their own?
16. If a creditor calls me looking for information about my neighbor, do I have an obligation to provide information to the creditor, do I have an obligation to say nothing and thus help my neighbor, or are there no obligations at all?
17. If a friend of my child makes a racist or discriminatory statement, do I have an obligation to say something to the child? Do I have an obligation to say something to the child’s parents?
18. If I know that guy mowing my yard is an illegal immigrant, do I have an obligation to call the police or ICE? What if he is a citizen or legal immigrant, but I know that his parent is here illegally? What if I only suspect?
19. If I suspect that my neighbor’s gardener is an illegal alien, do I have an obligation to report either the gardener and/or my neighbor?
20. If I hear someone repeating something that I know to be a lie, do I have an obligation to speak up?

Now, with those sorts of questions, and your general answers in mind, ask the following question: Do any of the obligations that you think may exist, change if the neighbor or other person in question is an illegal immigrant? What if that person is of a religion that you don’t approve of? What if that person did something that you find morally objectionable in an unrelated incident (for example, do any obligations to a neighbor differ if he is a convicted sex offender, had an abortion in her teens, or was arrested for drunk driving)?

Finally, think back on your answers yet again and then ask yourself if people in other parts of the world would answer the same way. Would people of a different faith tradition answer differently? What about people from different socio-economic classes? Are your answers uniquely American, unique to your religion or culture or social class?

As I said at the outset, I have my own ideas on these questions, but I certainly don’t have the “right” answers. But I do think that it is important to temper the individualistic zeal so enthusiastically supported by the Tea Party and some GOP candidates by an examination of what it means to be part of a society in the first place. If we have no obligations to one another, then so be it; that will certainly inform when it comes to decisions about tax policy and the social safety net. But if we do have obligations, then we need to consider those obligations in their broader societal form rather than just in their application to our family, friends, and neighbors. And no, I don’t think that a society that believes it has an obligation to help not only family, friends, and neighbors, but also the “least among us” is either “socialist” or “Marxist”.

Republicans (primarily) want to have a discussion about where to cut the social safety net; I don’t think that we can have that discussion until we’ve had a discussion about the obligations that we owe to one another as part of what we think of when we think of American society and culture.

Doctors and the Lack of Courtesy and Attention (Guest Post)

For quite some time I’ve been suggesting to my wife that she should write some posts for this blog. Well, she had an experience earlier today that finally prompted her to take my suggestion. So here is the first (and hopefully not last) guest post on Me Me Me Me Me!

---

How many times have you found yourself in a doctor’s appointment with a doctor who doesn’t actually want to listen to you and whose only goal is to give you the quickest answer possible and race out of the room before you can even open your mouth to speak? So many doctors today seem to be in this category, and it is the few doctors in the minority who actually are interested enough to listen to their patient and consider each one independently. Today I encountered yet another doctor who seemed more amused with himself and his own one-liner jokes than in listening to my problem. Had I not known better, I might have thought that I was having a prank pulled on me. Our conversation went like this:

Me: “I have pain on the edge of my heel, not only when I step down but also when I am sitting and my foot isn’t touching the floor.”

Doctor: “Your heel hurts most when you get up in the morning?”

Me: “No, it hurts all day exactly the same. It doesn’t hurt more in the morning.”

Doctor: “So, your heel hurts most in the morning when you get up!”

Me: “No, it hurts the same all day long.”

Doctor: “Where is the pain?”

Me: “On the edge of my heel.”

Doctor: “And the pain is in the bottom middle part of your heel.”

Me: “No, the pain is in the outer edge of my heel.”

Doctor: “Well, based on the fact that your heel hurts most in the morning, and is in the bottom middle part of your heel, you have plantar fasciitis.”

Ahhhhhh! At this point, I had about had it and knew that it was pointless to do anything more except smile and nod … while plotting my escape and wait for an appointment with another specialist who would hopefully listen to my symptoms.

The underlying question that we should ask here is why are the considerate, polite doctors in the minority and the doctors with the big egos in the majority for us patients? If we are willing to pay their hefty fees, then surely they should be responsible for actually doing their job both correctly and politely. Is it polite to ignore what your patient is saying? No. Is it polite to literally be running out the door while the patient is still talking? No. How would that very same doctor like it if he came to us for a service and we behaved the same way?  Not too happily, I imagine…

---

I’ve asked her to elaborate on some of her thoughts, maybe talk about why she thinks doctors act this way or what we, as patients, can do. Hopefully, there will be more to add to this post in the coming days. And we’d love to hear from doctors, too. Do you think that what my wife describes accurately reflects your profession? If so, why? If not, what do you think explains her experience?

Is Herman Cain Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion, or Just an Idiot?

Yes, yes, and yes.

But let me explain.

Some issues are very complicated with lots of detail and nuance. Other issues are much more straightforward, approaching the proverbial black or white, yes or no, up or down analysis. Abortion is one such issue. Sure, there is some degree of nuance: If abortion is illegal, should there be exceptions for rape or incest. If abortion is legal, should government pay for it. Similarly, questions arise regarding  when an abortion might be legal (i.e., first trimester only, until viability, etc.), the types of procedures to be allowed, notification and similar requirements, and what the rules are when the person seeking an abortion is a minor. But those queries are mostly just picking at the edges. The core issue is simply whether abortion should be against the law or whether a woman should have the right to get an abortion.

So let’s listen to what Herman Cain told Fox News’ John Stossel earlier this year:

CAIN: I’m pro-life from conception. Yes.

STOSSEL: Any cases where it should be legal?

CAIN: I don’t think government should make that decision. I don’t believe government should make that decision.

STOSSEL: People should be free to abort a baby?

CAIN: I support life from conception. No, people shouldn’t just be free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.

STOSSEL: So I’m confused on what your position is.

CAIN: My position is I’m pro-life. Period.

STOSSEL: If a woman is raped she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?

CAIN: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice. I support life from conception.

STOSSEL: So abortion should be legal?

CAIN: No. Abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.

STOSSEL: I’m not getting it. I’m not understanding.

CAIN: I believe…

STOSSEL: [crosstalk] If it’s her choice that means it’s legal.

CAIN: No. I believe… I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up?

STOSSEL: Even if she is raped?

CAIN: Even if she is raped or if she’s the victim of incest because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that.

STOSSEL: Alright.

So, are you clear on Cain’s position on abortion? It should not be legal but it isn’t for the government to decide. It should not be legal but whether to have an abortion should be a woman’s choice. Oh, and we should decide abortion policy because that decision will impact decisions on end-of-life care and, I suppose, euthanasia.

Well maybe David Gregory, interviewing Cain on Meet the Press can get a more clear response:

[following a brief discussion of same-sex marriage]

GREGORY: What about abortion? You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Could you support or condone abortion under any exceptions at all?

CAIN: I believe in life from conception and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.

GREGORY: Exceptions for rape and incest?

CAIN: Not for rape and incest because…

GREGORY: What about life of the mother?

CAIN: Because if you look at rape and incest they … the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.

GREGORY: Would you condone abortion if the life of the mother were…

CAIN: That family is going to have to make that…

GREGORY: You won’t render a judgment on…

CAIN: That family is going to have to make that decision.

Ah, much more clear, now. No abortions, even in cases of rape or incest because “those instances are miniscule” and there are other options. I’m sure that a girl who has been raped by her father will be happy to know that she is part of a miniscule statistic and has other options. Does that baby come with an extra topping and free breadsticks? But if a woman’s life is in danger, Cain will allow the family to make the decision.

So then, Cain was interviewed by CNN’s Piers Morgan. Yes, Celebrity Apprentice America’s Got Talent, Piers Morgan. After an interesting discussion about homosexuality (Cain thinks being gay is a choice that he distinguishes from race because race doesn’t “wash off”) the subject turned to abortion:

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances and here’s why.

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because of many of your fellow candidates or certainly some them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but…

MORGAN: Rape and incest and so on.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying again … tricky question I know …

CAIN: It’s a tricky question…

MORGAN: You… You’ve had children, grandchildren… If one of your female children, grandchildren was raped you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things there Piers.

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things…

MORGAN: Because that’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No. It comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as President, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It’s down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide.I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a decision…

MORGAN: Besides expressing the view that you express you are effectively telling… You might be President. You can’t hide behind now the mask if you don’t mind me saying it of being the pizza guy. You might be President of the United States of America so your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They’ve become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.

MORGAN: That’s really interesting. That a very interesting departure from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly. [Note: These last two lines don’t appear in this video; they are present in other versions of the video, but I chose this version because it was easier to embed.]

Ok. Does that make it any more clear? Abortion under no circumstances, but it’s not the government’s job to tell a family what decision to make.

Realizing that he had, once again, stepped in the proverbial, “it”, Cain took to Twitter and said:

I'm 100% pro-life. End of story.

His campaign then released the following statement:

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.

I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Ah, yes. The old “blame the interviewer” strategy (how’d that work out for Sarah Palin?). Now go back and re-read Morgan’s questions and Cain’s answers. Were you confused by Morgan’s question? Did you think Morgan was asking just about the “role of the President”? And, if Morgan was talking about the “President’s role”, then what was the point of Cain’s discussion about the “choice” that a family must make or the notion that it isn’t the government’s role to make that decision?

So Cain went on GOP-TV … er, sorry … Fox News again to try to further clarify his position:

MACCALLUM: … the question that that description sounds an awful lot like choice.

CAIN: It’s not, Martha. Look, let’s go back. See he was asking me two questions. My position on abortion has been the same … on pro-life has been the same throughout this campaign. And that is I am pro-life from conception and I don’t believe in abortion. When he then tried to pigeon-hole me on my granddaughter being there as as a victim of rape, then what would I do? The only point I was trying to make. A lot of families would be in that position, and they're not going to be thinking 'Well, what does the government want me to do?” My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion, but all I was trying to point out was: take the typical family in this country, and you don't know what they might do in the heat of the moment.

MACCALLUM: I understand that…

CAIN: That’s what I was trying to say.

MACCALLUM: I understand that. But here’s the issue that pro-life people are going to have with that. They’re saying that you’re presenting it as a choice, a decision that’s to be made by the family, not something that is considered murder by the laws of this country. So that’s where you draw the line. And you know Rick Santorum who we’re going to have on a little bit later has already come and said you know that for him there’s absolutely no dividing line. So we… You know there’s plenty of people out here, plenty of Catholic politicians for example, who you know…

CAIN: Right.

MACCALLUM: …Have said exactly what you just said. That when it comes down to it they’re absolutely pro-life but that they want the government to stay out of the decision, they want the family to make the ultimate decision, they’ve gotten a lot of grief for that. So you know, so that’s where the tough line is on this for you. And you’re getting a lot of backlash from a very influential radio host in Iowa on this this morning and they’re saying this is going to be problematic for you with the people in Iowa.

CAIN: Well, I’m sorry if it’s going to be problematic. Let me just state again. I am pro-life from conception. No exceptions. I was trying to separate two situations here. And if they won’t allow me to separate those two situations, they won’t allow me to separate those two situations. That’s unfortunate. I don’t know how much more I can say than I’m pro-life from conception. No exceptions. I will not fund any abortions by government. I will work to de… I will sign any legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and all of the other variations on this who pro-life issue. I was trying to make another point and if that point was missed…

MACCALLUM: I understand… [crosstalk] but I guess the question is do you believe that abortion should be legal in this country for families who want to make that decision?

CAIN: No. No. No. I do not believe abortion should be legal in this country, if that's the question.

MACCALLUM: So then, so then you're saying that if those circumstances come up and the family does make that decision, that they decide that that is the best thing for this young person or she decides that on her own, then if that were the case, you know, that's what they decided, then it would be an illegal abortion that they would need to seek.

CAIN: It would be an illegal abortion! If the law… Look, abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that's that family’s decision. That’s all I’m trying to say.

MACCALLUM: Alright. Understood, Mr. Cain.

And to even further clarify his position, Cain gave an interview to Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody:

(Transcript taken, in part, from CBN.com’s Brody File with some formatting changes; note that the CBN transcript has odd omissions from the text):

BRODY: This whole… The whole pro-life situation. What is the lesson that you are learning from all of this would you say?

CAIN: The lesson that I’m learning is that I’ve got to be careful of being pigeonholed because people can take a piece of tape and edit out the first half and only pull out one snippet that could start a firestorm. The tape that you are referring to, I said specifically, “I am pro-life, from conception, no abortions, no exceptions,” but they only focus on a later part of it where they were trying to pigeonhole me with a specific situation. So, the lesson learned is beware of being pigeonholed, because you know they can pull it, and take it out of context.

BRODY: Right. Let me ask you, cause you just mentioned out here. Do you believe that abortion should be illegal in America?

CAIN: Yes.

BRODY: Social conservatives and pro-life groups will hear that and say therefore are you for some sort of pro-life amendment to the Constitution that in essence would trump Roe v. Wade?

CAIN: Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. You known. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it.

… [discussion about a same-sex marriage]

BRODY: The social conservative groups, one of the things they’re telling me is that they want a president that’s going to use the bully pulpit on the life issue. It doesn’t mean you have to get bogged down on all of this, but they want to see a president if not use the word advance the legislation, at least use the bully pulpit to talk to America about this issue. What’s your sense on that?

CAIN: I believe that the office of the presidency and the bully pulpit should be used for that because I happen to believe that we have many instances where, if you appeal to people’s hearts, you can change their minds. I had the experience of visiting a facility in Houston, Texas, not too long ago. It was a women’s facility, I can’t remember the name. I happened to be there that day, what they do, they work with young ladies who have gotten pregnant and they think they want an abortion. It was so moving to walk in there, and they introduced me to a young lady who had decided not to have an abortion, and see that pretty baby there. If you touch the hearts of people you can get people’s minds to change, but you have to show them the beauty of not aborting a life. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. How did he bring about the movement that resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? He touched the hearts of people. That’s what a president needs to have the ability to do, in order to change peoples’ minds.

BRODY: You’re saying as president of the United States, you can be a business man and also somewhat of a social conservative warrior as well?

CAIN: Yes. You sure can. You sure can because if people trust you, they will believe in you and they might rethink some of their thoughts on some of these social issues.

Besides noting how different this last statement is than his first statements, did you notice anything else interesting in Cain’s comments to CBN?

CAIN: If we can get the necessary support [a pro-life amendment to the Constitution] and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it.

Perhaps, if Cain really wants to be President he should, you know, like, um, maybe, read the Constitution! If he did, he might learn that Presidents don’t sign constitutional amendments; in fact, Presidents have no real role to play in the amendment process.

And though this is only tangentially related to the direct question of Cain’s position on the legality of abortion, his comments on efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are worth considering:

Here’s why I support de-funding Planned Parenthood, because you don’t hear a lot of people talking about this, when Margaret Sanger — check my history — started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world,” Cain told CNSNews.com on Tuesday when speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Cain’s comment was in response to a question from CNSNews.com about whether the Republican-controlled Congress should vote against any federal tax dollars for Planned Parenthood.

“You don’t see that talked that much about,” said Cain. “It’s not Planned Parenthood. No, it’s planned genocide. You can quote me on that.”

I’ll leave discussion of that quote for another day.

But, to sum it up, here is what I understand Cain’s position to be on the issue of abortion:

• He is pro-life, from conception; and
• Abortion should be illegal; but
• Government shouldn’t make the decision about whether there are exceptions; though
• Abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest; but
• It should be up to a family to decide if the life of the mother is at risk; and
• Government shouldn’t tell people what to do on a social decision they have to make; but
• If people chose to have an abortion, even after rape or incest, it would be an illegal abortion.

And

• As President he would just have an opinion that wouldn’t be a directive on the nation; but
• He would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to convince people not to have abortions; but
• The Government shouldn’t tell people what to do about social decisions; but
• He would “sign” a constitutional amendment to ban abortions.

Clear now?

I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to hear Cain’s positions on complex issues with lots of variables. I mean, how hard is it, really, to enunciate a clear and consistent position on an issue like abortion? I mean, it isn’t as if this is a brand new issue that was suddenly sprung upon politicians; nor is it an issue upon which few people, other than experts who’ve spent decades of study, can develop a reasonably thorough understanding and a cogent, consistent positions It seems to me that Cain has memorized his talking point (“I’m pro-life, from conception”) but doesn’t really have a firm understanding of the actual issue, the impact on real people, or, perhaps most importantly, what words (i.e., “decision” or “choice”) really mean.

Amy Sullivan, writing for Time.com’s Swampland blog, sums it up quite well:

There’s nothing refreshing about a would-be President whose answers to complicated questions depend on total ignorance of the issues involved.

Finally, if you haven’t seen it yet, you must watch this web ad for Herman Cain. It may be one of the strangest political ads ever. Watch carefully at about 0:40.

Seriously? Smoking? And what’s with that really creepy smile that Cain gives at the end? It’s like he knows something that we don’t. I mean, that the smile of a man who is saying, “Boy, am I pulling one over on these idiots…”.

A Chart Is Worth a Thousand Words

I came across several charts over the last few days that do a nice job of illustrating several tax policy issues. First, let’s look at the repeated point that somewhere near 50% of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes (though this fact is often muddled by the careless or specious omission of the words “income” or “federal” from the claim; see my previous post Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor and Elderly? for more on this). Anyway, take a look at this chart (from Talking Points Memo):

There are a few important things to note here. First, note the decline in the percentage of revenue from corporate taxes. Then look both at the increasing percentage that payroll taxes account for. Now remember, payroll taxes are only paid on income derived from things like wages. Thus, there isn’t a payroll tax on the sale of a stock or a corporation or on dividends from owning a corporation. That is one of the reasons that billionaires like Warren Buffet may pay a smaller overall percentage of their income in taxes than do middle class working Americans. So, when you hear someone talk about the large percentage of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax, keep this chart in mind and remember that many of those people are still paying federal payroll taxes which account for nearly 40% of the federal government’s revenues.

To go with the foregoing chart, take a look at these charts from Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (incidentally, I’ve been privileged to attend several presentations by the CBPP on tax policy; these people really know their stuff and do a great job presenting their information in a meaningful and understandable way):

So when you hear someone (i.e., a Republican presidential candidate) talk about people paying their fair share, you should ask yourself which of these groups should have their taxes raised. I think that a massive tax increase on people who can’t afford to feed their families would be a great idea. Maybe a big tax increase for the homeless, too.

When you hear a candidate or elected official discussing tax policy and their refusal to raise taxes on income above $1,000,000 you might ask about some of the information from these charts. And just for yucks, you might ask that candidate or official to explain how marginal tax rates work; the more I hear from politicians the more convinced I’ve become that many (if not most) don’t really understand this core concept of our tax structure.

Finally, more for laughs than anything else, below is a chart prepared by the CBPP to show how Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would impact the taxes paid by Americans of different income levels. Be prepared to start scrolling…

If I’m in that top 0.1%, Herman Cain would be my candidate! But if I’m in the bottom 80%… um, not so much.

Government So Small it Will Allow a Doctor to Kill a Woman But Big Enough to Keep Her from Talking to Her Doctor

Last week the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed House Resolution 358, the so-called “Protect Life Act”. However, many people have taken to referring to this bill, not as the “Protect Life Act” but, rather, as the “Let Women Die Act”. Why you ask?

Imagine that you’re a pregnant woman. And imagine that something terrible happens and suddenly your life is danger. You are rushed to the nearest hospital. When examined, it becomes clear that an emergency abortion is required to save your life. But the hospital or the treating physician is opposed to abortion and therefore refuses to offer or even discuss that treatment with you. And so you die. The fetus, too.

Under existing law, the hospital can’t do that (well, not if the hospital receives any federal funds and virtually all do); a hospital can’t allow a woman to die if the only way to save her is to perform an abortion.

But the Protect Life/Let Women Die Act would overturn that existing law. It would allow a hospital or doctor to exercise their conscience and not perform the necessary life-saving procedure. In fact, as I understand it, the hospital or doctor would not even have to tell the woman that an abortion could save her life.

I’m really curious to hear from the pro-life readers of this blog whether they think that is the right outcome. I’m not asking whether a hospital should be required to perform elective abortions and I’m not asking whether federal or state funds should be used to pay for abortions. I just want to know what people think about a hospital or doctor allowing a woman to die in order not to perform an abortion.

And if the woman dies, so too, I imagine, will the fetus. So what life is being “protected”?

Ah, but that isn’t enough for one Senator. Nope. He wants to be sure that women can’t even discuss abortion with their doctor via the Internet or teleconference (i.e., Skype):

Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman's health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

(Emphasis in original.) [Note that the text of the DeMint amendment has apparently not yet been posted; rather, he apparently discussed the amendment in remarks made to the Senate that will be included in the Congressional Record before the amendment is formally introduced.]

Funny, but I don’t remember Sen. DeMint proposing laws to ban the use of the Internet for discussion about assassinating President Obama. I don’t recall him trying to prohibit people from using Skype to discuss efforts to disenfranchise several hundred thousand African Americans in his home state of South Carolina. Nope. And, if I recall correctly, Sen. DeMint was one of those vocal opponents on the issue of net neutrality, fearing Glenn Beck’s completely misplaced fear of a government takeover of the Internet.

But when it comes to the issue of abortion, Sen. DeMint is happy to trample on the First Amendment, the freedom of the Internet, and a woman’s right to have a discussion with her doctor.

I wonder: Will he next propose a ban on women discussing abortion with their doctors in a face-to-face environment? Will he try to ban online discussions of homosexuality? Maybe we should ban any discussion of things that a far-right, evangelical Christian doesn’t agree with. Internet Theocracy perhaps?

So just take a few moments and think about where the Republican party is today. They want smaller government. So small, in fact, that it will let women die. But not so small that it won’t prevent the use of the Internet to advance the doctor-patient relationship.

Shameless. And disgusting.

Is this why people voted Republican?

Oh, one last question: How many jobs will either of these proposals create?

Gilad Shalit and Israeli-Arab Prisoner Exchanges

To many Americans, the name Gilad Shalit rings no bells. However, I think it’s fair to say that to Israelis, Shalit has become as important as we Americans viewed the Americans held hostage in Iran in 1979.

In June 2006, Shalit was a 19-year-old soldier serving in the Israeli army. He was stationed on the border with Gaza. Members of Hamas tunneled under the border and attacked an Israeli army post. Several Israeli soldiers and Hamas terrorists were killed. And Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas and taken back to Gaza through the tunnel.

During his years of captivity, Hamas has refused to allow the Red Cross or other humanitarian agencies to see Shalit to check on his health or to allow him humanitarian communication with his family (as required by international law). In fact, since being kidnapped, the only contact between Shalit and the outside world has been three letters, an audio tape, and a DVD that Israel received on in 2010 in return for releasing 20 female Palestinian prisoners (more on that in a moment).

In the years since Shalit was kidnapped, Israel has worked hard to reach some kind of agreement for his release. Mediators from international organizations and Egypt have been involved, but to no avail. Until now.

Yesterday, Israel announced, and Hamas confirmed, that working through an Egyptian mediator, Israel and Hamas had agreed upon a prisoner exchange. Hamas will release Gilad Shalit … and Israel will release approximately 1,047 Palestinians convicted of terrorism or other crimes.

And therein lies the point that I want to discuss. Just think about it for a moment: Israel is willing to release 1,047 people convicted of terrorism or other crimes in exchange for 1 soldier. When I think about that deal, it makes me wonder about the valuation of life made by the two societies. To Israel, it is worth the life of a single soldier to free over a thousand convicted terrorists and criminals. Would you make that trade? Would you make that trade if the soldier was your child? But then look at it from the Palestinian perspective. How valuable are the lives of any one of those Palestinian prisoners? Obviously 10 of them aren’t worth enough to trade for Shalit. Nor are 100 or 500 or even 1,000. Nope. It took 1,047 prisoners to “equal” the worth of Gilad Shalit. Moreover, it’s not just run-of-the-mill Palestinians who accidentally ran afoul of Israeli law who are to be released; rather, those on the list include Palestinians who planned or carried out actual acts of terrorism that killed Israelis. Apparently Israel did refuse to allow two terrorist “superstars” that Hamas has been demanding.

You know, Israel could have said to the Palestinians that Israel would stop treating Palestinians in Israeli hospitals until Shalit was released. Israel could have said that Palestinians wouldn’t have access to Muslim holy sites in Israel or the West Bank until Shalit was released. Israel could have withheld funding from the Palestinian Authority until Shalit was released. Israel could have refused to allow the Red Cross or humanitarian agencies to have access to Palestinians in Israeli jails until Shalit was released. But Israel didn’t do any of that. Israel did threaten to stop jailed Palestinians from being able to continue work on college degrees from within prison.

Oh, and Israel never said that it wouldn’t keep trying to negotiate peace until Shalit was released; by contrast, the Palestinians have refused to negotiate until Israel stops additional construction of “settlements” (for more on this issue see Are Israeli Settlements Really Such a Problem? A Primer and Palestinian Statehood).

What is fascinating about this trade is that it isn’t the first time that Israel has made a trade this seemingly lopsided. Recall earlier that Israel was willing to release 20 female Palestinian prisoners, not for Shalit, but for a DVD showing Shalit. And to think that people complain about the prices that Netflix charges for a DVD…

In 1969, Israel participated in a multi-party exchange that saw Israel release 52 POWs to Syria and the UAR in exchange for 2 Israelis by Egypt.

In the early 1990s, Israel offered to pay Iran $10 billion and help Iran negotiate with the United States. What did Israel want in return? Israel wanted information about Israeli air force pilot Ron Arad who was captured by Hezbollah. $10 billion for information. Oh, and did I mention that it was presumed that Arad was already dead?

Later, in 2008, Israel released Samir Kuntar, 4 Hezbollah militants, and 200 Lebanese and Palestinian POWs in exchange for the bodies of 2 Israeli soldiers. Previously, Israel was going to release Kuntar for “concrete proof” from Hezbollah as to Ron Arad’s fate, but that deal apparently fell part. And if the name Samir Kuntar doesn’t mean anything to you:

Samir Kuntar … is a Lebanese Druze convicted murderer and former member of the Palestine Liberation Front. On April 22, 1979, at the age of 16, he participated in the attempted kidnapping of an Israeli family in Nahariya that resulted in the deaths of four Israelis and two of his fellow kidnappers. Kuntar was convicted in an Israeli court for murder of an Israeli policeman, Eliyahu Shahar, 31 year-old Danny Haran, and Haran's 4-year-old daughter, Einat Haran, whom he killed with blunt force against a rock. He was also convicted of indirectly causing the death of two-year-old Yael Haran by suffocation, as her mother, Smadar, tried to quiet her crying while hiding from Kuntar. In 1980 Kuntar was sentenced to four life sentences. [¶] Immediately after his arrest, Kuntar admitted to the killings, but at his sentence and thereafter he denied killing the father and daughter, saying that they had been killed by security forces in the ensuing gun battle. He did admit to taking them hostage and killing Eliyahu Shahar, however.

(Footnotes and hyperlinks omitted.) So, the man convicted of what many Israelis regard as one of the most brutal terror attacks ever (in case the Wikipedia article wasn’t clear, Kuntar killed the 4-year-old girl by repeatedly smashing her skull against a rock), was released for the bodies of 2 Israeli soldiers.

The earlier failed exchange that would have released Kuntar did result in the release of 30 Lebanese POWs, the remains of 59 Lebanese, and 400 Palestinians in exchange for an Israeli businessman kidnapped by Hezbollah and the remains of 3 Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid.

In all, over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 Palestinian prisoners to secure freedom for 19 Israelis and the bodies of 8 others.

7,000 for 19 (plus 8 bodies). When we add in the Shalit exchange, it will be about 8,000 for 20. I’ll let you do the math.

So why is Israel willing to give up so much for the return of a single Israeli or even the body of a single Israeli or information about a single Israeli? And why do the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt demand so many prisoners before they will release that single Israeli or that single body or that nugget of information?

I could speculate on answers, but I don’t think I will. At least not here and not now. But I will say that the efforts and sacrifices that Israel has shown it is willing to make for the return of Israelis tells me much about the value placed upon the lives of Israelis by the Israeli government and the Israeli public.

But perhaps this video, and in particular, the last words of the Hamas spokesman, may offer some insight:

When Gilad Shalit returns to Israel, perhaps in the next day or so, there will be jubilant celebration in Israel. But that jubilation comes at a very expensive — and dangerous — price.

Freedom of Speech Just Isn’t That Complicated (and other notes about Hank Williams Jr.)

Some things are complicated; other things, less so. Take for example the protections for speech embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution (pertinent part in red):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But far too many people seem to think that the protections of the First Amendment apply to the acts of individuals and businesses, not just the government. For example, read what Hank Williams Jr. had to say today about his quitting (or being fired — it isn’t entirely clear) from ESPN for making offensive comments (more on that in a minute):

After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.

Did you get that? According to Williams, ESPN “stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech…” (what’s with the weird capitalization…?). Um, sorry, Hank, but no. ESPN not only did not step on any First Amendment toes, it could not step on First Amendment toes because ESPN is not a governmental entity. The First Amendment allows Williams to make any stupid, asinine, racist, hateful statement that he wants. But the First Amendment does not require ESPN to air those statements or to continue to employ or have business relations with Williams.

This reminds me a bit of comments Sarah Palin made during the 2008 campaign when she was criticized for saying that Barack Obama “palled around with terrorists” (emphasis added):

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

Similarly, when Laura Ingraham was criticized for a profanity-ridden tirade on her radio show (from which she then resigned), Palin noted on Twitter:

Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)

But all too many people — and unfortunately, all to many prominent people — seem to think that the First Amendment protects them from criticism or gives them a right to be heard. It does not.

The First Amendment means that I can stand on a tree stump and shout my ideas to the world; but it does not mean that anybody has to come listen. The First Amendment means that I can write a book with crazy ideas; but it does not mean that anybody has to read it. And the First Amendment means that I can tell a newspaper reporter what I really think; but it doesn’t mean that he has to print it.

And therein lies the confusion behind the statements of people like Williams and Palin. The problem is that these people want us to take their points of view seriously and want to have an influence on politics and our government (thankfully Palin isn’t running for the GOP nomination, but Williams is allegedly considering a run for the Senate from Tennessee). But they don’t understand the core concepts embodied in the First Amendment.

We have to ask ourselves whether people whose understanding of this fundamental component of the Constitution is so fatally flawed are people whose voices we should pay any attention to, let alone follow or elect.

I wonder what Williams would say if I bought a ticket to his concert and then claimed a First Amendment right to climb onto the stage and say what I think? Is he violating my First Amendment rights if he refuses to allow me to write my thoughts on the liner notes of his next album? And when FOX News refuses to allow me to appear to tell Sean Hannity that he’s … anyway, I think you get the point. Williams has the right to decide who can speak from his stage or on his album. FOX News can decide who can appear on their programs. And ESPN can decide if they want to keep playing Williams’ song. And none of those decisions impact the First Amendment.

Yes, there are complicated issues that arise under this part of the First Amendment, whether we’re talking about defamation or the public forum doctrine or reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But the basic question of whether a private corporation violates someone’s First Amendment right to free speech by refusing to provide a forum to that person is not one of those complicated issues.

I also want to back up and look at the comments Williams made on FOX News that led to this situation:

WILLIAMS: You remember the -- you remember the golf game they had, ladies and gentlemen?

DOOCY: Yeah?

WILLIAMS: Remember the golf game?

DOOCY: Boehner?

WILLIAMS: That was one of the biggest political mistakes ever.

CO-HOSTS: Why?

WILLIAMS: That turned a lot of people off. You know, watching, you know, it just didn't go over.

CARLSON: You mean when John Boehner played golf with President Obama?

WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah! Yeah. And Biden and Kasich, yeah. Uh-huh.

CARLSON: What did you not like about it? It seems to be a really pivotal moment for you.

WILLIAMS: Come on. Come on. It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu, OK?

CARLSON: OK.

WILLIAMS: Not hardly. In the country this shape is in, the shape this country's in, I mean, no, I don't think so.

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Yeah, I don't understand that analogy, actually.

DOOCY: Well, it's -- it's out there.

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do. You know, they're the enemy. They're the enemy.

KILMEADE: Who's the enemy?

WILLIAMS: Obama! And Biden! Are you kidding? The Three Stooges.

Now I get that some people dislike President Obama, maybe even hate him. But Hitler? I mean, we’ve covered this ground before, but I think that it’s important to take a quick look at the context of Williams’ comparison. He doesn’t say that President Obama’s policies remind him of Hitler. Nor does he suggest that President Obama is trying to stage a coup or consolidate power like Hitler. His statement doesn’t appear to have anything to do with policy. Rather, he suggests that a golf game between the President and Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House and a sitting governor — a social activity during which leaders of the two political parties might have a chance to talk — was completely and totally unacceptable. But he didn’t just say that; rather, he went further still and presented an analogy where one side represents one of the greatest mass murderers in history and the other side represents his victims.

Even with all the animosity people like Williams feel toward President Obama and even with their apparent view that the Republicans should not negotiate or compromise, why does the analogy have to be one in which President Obama is compared to Hitler? And, for that matter, why would President Obama and Vice President Obama be characterized, not as political opponents or people with whom Williams has a differing political viewpoint (which, recall, he can express thanks to the First Amendment…), but as “the enemy”.

To Williams, President Obama is so evil, so beyond the purview of human understanding, that the mere act of playing golf with him is a terrible, unforgivable sin. Really?

What would Williams have Americans do with an “enemy” comparable to Hitler? Somehow just voting for someone else doesn’t seem a “punishment” worthy of the “crime”.

So now let’s look at Williams’ “apology”. First, came this attempt to explain his comments:

Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme — but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me — how ludicrous that pairing was. They’re polar opposites and it made no sense. They don’t see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the President.

Every time the media brings up the tea party it’s painted as racist and extremists — but there’s never a backlash — no  outrage to those comparisons… Working class people are hurting — and it doesn’t seem like anybody cares. When both sides are high-fiving it on the ninth hole when everybody else is without a job — it makes a whole lot of us angry.  Something has to change. The policies have to change.

Does that explanation clear anything up for you? And did you note that he gets upset that the Tea Party is painted as being racist and extremist … in his explanation for why he compared President Obama to Hitler? Nope, no extremism there. Move along… Now might be a good time to go back and review all of those photos I posted of the Tea Party making that same comparison together with expressing other charming views (see list of links at the bottom of this post).

Following that explanation, Williams tried his hand at an apology, of sorts:

I have always been very passionate about Politics and Sports and this time it got the Best or Worst of me. The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist.

Note that classic formulation of this non-apology apology. He doesn’t say that he is sorry for making the comparison that he made or that it was wrong (just “Dumb”). Nope. Instead he says that he is “very Sorry if it Offended anyone” (emphasis added). In other words, he isn’t sorry for the words he used; he’s only sorry that someone might have taken offense at those words. It’s like saying, “I’m not sorry I called you an asshole, I’m sorry you were offended that I called you an asshole.” Watch for that sort of non-apology double-speak, as it has become quite popular among politicians and others who are forced to publicly “apologize” for things they’ve said.

Oh, and Hank? By the way you write, trust me: We can tell that it wasn’t written by a publicist…

One final point that I want to make about Williams. When I visited his website to find his statements, the first image that confronted me left me a bit dumbfounded:

Stop and look at that picture for a moment let it sink in.

I’m not sure what the logo in the middle of the flag is. I tried to find it on Google but had no success (though I only spent a few minutes; if you recognize it, please let me know). But the flag itself is pretty obvious, isn’t it? That is, indeed, a Confederate battle flag. For those who forget their civil war history, that flag represents, plainly put, treason. It represents those who took up arms against the United States so that they could continue to own slaves. It is the flag that was flown as Americans killed one another on battlefields across our country. And here it is, being oh so proudly displayed by members of the United States military (presumably in Iraq or Afghanistan). Does that trouble you? It troubles the hell out of me…

And of all the images for Williams to choose to advertise his Facebook page, he chooses an image of apparently active duty, deployed soldiers displaying the flag of treason. What does that tell us about Williams? It tells me just about all I need to know.

For my part, I’m looking forward to Monday Night Football continuing to open without a song sung by an apparently insensitive, stupid, bigot. Goodbye, Hank. Good riddance.

---

Here are links to all (I think) of my posts with images of the Tea Party displaying racist or violent rhetoric:

A Sampling of Signs from the "Tea Bag" Parties That You Didn't See on the News
A Sampling of Signs from the "Tea Bag" Parties That You Didn't See on the News (update 1)
Here We Go Again: More “Tax Protest” Signs
Here We Go Again: More “Tax Protest” Signs (Part 2)
Here We Go Again: More “Tax Protest” Signs (Part 3)
Here We Go Again: More “Tax Protest” Signs (Part 4)
Tea Party Idiots Are Back ... and Just as Vile
How Do We Respond?
Yet More Tea Party Signs: Racism, Violent Rhetoric, and Idiocy
What Violent Rhetoric? Washington Times Alleges a “Pogrom” Against “Conservative Thinkers”

Just for fun (with a bit of bonus racism):

Teabonics: More Reasons to Fear the Teabaggers.

For comparison, here is my post on the Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear (that I attended, albeit briefly):

Some Signs from the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Busy, Busy, Busy

Sorry for the lack of updates. Work has kept me very busy of late. I've got a few things in the hopper, but nothing I'm quite ready to post.