Today's Crisis

Oh my, Oh my, Barbie's ankles are too fat! What to do? Let her take Furosemide. That's what I do.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/10/14/joy.behar.carter.intv.hln

Corn Subsidies: The Multifarious Complexities and Ambiguities of Life

The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia: No shortage exists of reasons to bolster whatever theory anyone wants to believe.  (Leszek Kolakowski)

The Law of Universal Self Interest: We are all driven by self-interests, meaning not only selfishness but what the self is interested in. (Ken Cauthen)

Given the Law of the Infinite Cornucopia  and the Law of Universal Self-Interest, this essay is undertaken boldly but with humility and in light of Whitehead's observation that sometimes it is more important that something be interesting than true.

My understanding is that the huge subsidies given to American corn farmers Under NAFTA have been disastrous for Mexican corn farmers, leading to immigration from the farms to Mexican cities and the United States.

I propose that the government subsidies, which totaled $56.2 billion from 1995-2006, should be reduced by 10% each year and the savings used to sponsor illegal immigrants willing to return to Mexico and grow corn or take other jobs, with  added assistance from the Mexican government.

Will it work? I have no idea. Will  it happen? Absolutely not.

But it is an awfully interesting subject. If you google the terms, you will soon get into economic theory regarding free trade (may produce gain for the many, pain for the few), the loss of Amazon forests,  ethanol controversies, a lot of interpretation  to suit the predilections of the interpreters, American political realities, e.g., power of farm lobbies (Obama voted for the subsidies, McCain against, etc.), corn products and obesity, how rich nations can help overcome poverty in poor and developing countries,  economic adaptation to changing conditions, and a lot of other stuff illustrating my favorite terms -- complexity and ambiguity.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Plutocracy Rules. Who Will Save Us?

Surely President Obama knows that we live in a plutocracy or something far too close to one. Surely he does not approve. Granted these two premises, I can only conclude that he thinks he is powerless to do much about it.

The financial industry has been dealt with tenderly, despite some brave words to the contrary. Tim Geithner's ties to Wall Street are cause for alarm. He is too much in the mold of Henry  Paulson. Larry Summers provides no comfort.

Congressional Committees seeking to provide stiffer regulation are having tough going. "Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is none too thrilled by the watering-down he has been compelled to accept by the New Democrats -- chiefly Democrats from affluent, suburban swing districts -- on his committee," says Harold Myerson in The Washington Post, (October 14, 2009).

Does anyone know how we can elect a Congress with Ralph Nader's ideas on this subject and a President who will suppport their legislation?

Quasi-Acerbic Reflections for Today

Am I the only one who wonders if we should be  spending money we must borrow bombing the moon when 35,000 showed up for 3500 stimulus awards  to help with mortgage foreclosures in Detroit? Detroit this summer had an unemployment rate of 28.9%.

Am I the only one who thinks that if Charlie Rangel is not sternly disciplined by House Democrats, Speaker Pelosi's brave words about cleaning up the place will become testimonies to cowardice?

Republicans Unpatriotic?

When President Obama went to Copenhagen and failed to get the Olympics for Chicago, some Republicans cheered, especially the extremist nut cases -- they who are usually so patriotic, even jingoistic.

When President Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace, some of the same crowd deplored this award to an American.

Let us admit that the Nobel Peace Prize is something of a Rorschach test that evokes our own predilections and preferences. What about Henry Kissinger? Yasir Arafat? Norwegians have their own as well. 

They key to this bizarre behavior is not to be found in reason and logic, but apparently is grounded in the premise that if Obama is involved, it must be wrong, even if the country must be disparaged in the process.

Strange, but these are some of the same people who think that passing a health care bill in the reconciliation maneuver would be  awful now, but was OK when President Bush the Younger used it to pass his atrocious tax bill to benefit multimillionaires and billionaires.

We must look to St. Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and Reinhold Niebuhr for the clue to this behavior and ours as well, i. e., the natural tendency of individuals and groups (the nation state being the supreme  example) to prefer  self-interest--affirmed, encouraged, and sometimes magnified by choice -- though at times moderated by concern and compassion for others, more so in individuals and small groups than by larger collectives. (Long sentence but the details get a little messy and complicated, full of ambiguities, contradictions, and the like.)

Who are the Republicans?

Republicans fall mostly into three groups and those in the vicinity: One segment has a moral imagination limited mainly to matters involving sex.

A second group either wants to grant big business as much power to run the country as possible or is willing to aid and abet or at least not hinder this effort.

Finally, there are a few more moderate folks who just want change to go slow and not upset things much in a short time.

By the time you combine these allow for those in the vicinity of these three subdivisions and for some exceptions to any rules, you have included nearly all of them. But start with the three main groups and add as necessary.

You could also start with history, region, and culture and arrive basically at the same trio of barriers to what I would prefer in the way of a country worthy to elicit pride.

Mail me a letter attached to a 2010 Prius, and I will provide political science and journalistic labels for these denominations of barriers to progress.

Why Does Obama Have to Deny the Truth?

Obama sometimes appears so pragmatic and politically motivated that it forces him to deny the obvious. President Carter, I think, overstated the case when he said that race was the major factor in the recent protests. Race is not the only ingredient, but it is surely one important one. Yet the Obama Administration is falling all over itself, trying to deny that race enters at all. Why?

Remember when he was so naive in his campaign in so stressing our unity at Americans that he obscured  the real  differences that divide us by race, class, region, self-interest, and ideology.

He knows better in his heart. Too bad his head tells him that truth is not politically advantageous in some cases.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Why Universal Health Care is so Hard to Achieve.

 

 

Many reasons can be cited to explain why it has been so hard in this country to get health insurance for every citizen, an idea proposed as long ago as Harry Truman. One is surely the powerful individualism that may have been more fitted to the early centuries of our history but ruinous today. This contributes to the lack of a strong socialist tradition characteristic of advanced European nations.

Another that needs more attention is the fact that white people do not want to be taxed for benefits that go to people of color, in the past meaning mainly black folks and today Latinos as well. This too has a long history. See: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/15/race/

Add to this the unwillingness of Americans to  support benefits that help others if it costs them something. Finally, add the political influence of huge insurance and drug companies that can use money, if not to buy. at least strongly influence legislation that preserves and increases their financial interests.

Doubtless other factors enter, but the ones mentioned are sufficient to explain why it will be like moving mountains with a shovel to get universal health care that is efficient and affordable.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Americans, Get Healthier, and Costs Will Go Down

Everybody knows that we spend much more than other countries on health care with worse outcomes. What is not so often noted is that we have more unhealthy people to begin with. Our kids and adults eat too much sugar, made cheap by huge subsidies to corn farmers. We suffer from obesity, sedentary habits, and eat too much fat and fast foods, producing a growing epidemic of type two diabetes.

If we want to have lower health care costs, then we as a population need to get healthier by preventing illness through better diets, more exercise, good health habits -- and no smoking and less alcohol.

When will the politicians tell us this simple truth we don't want to hear? I don't mean with euphemistic-tending, weak language like more preventive care. I mean direct talk like this: "Look, as a nation we are  fat, eat too much sugar and bad fats, don't exercise enough, smoke too much and, generally don't take care of ourselves very well. We can either shape up and get fit or pay more for health care, live with chronic conditions, and die early."

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

On Outlasting the Bastards

At the celebration of Pete Seeger's 90th birthday, Bruce Springstein spoke of the election of Barack Obama in the context of Seeger's decades long fight against bigotry, violence, and injustice. Then he said, "Pete, you outlasted the bastards."

So come on, all you who long for peace, you who despise prejudice against any human being, you who long for an end to hate and violence, you who work for justice,we have to outlast the bastards.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Nobody Has Seen the Whole Elephant

A familiar story circulating in various religious versions has four blind men touching an elephant and saying what it is. One touches the side and says wall, another grabs the tail and says rope, another takes hold of the trunk and says hose, a final one grabs a leg and says pillar.  Sometimes the argument rages until the men get violent, or some wise person will resolve the issue by telling them the truth, e. g., all of them are partially right but each has identified only a part while the truth lies in the whole.  

       

Now this story has right and wrong interpretations. The wrong one is that all religions have part of the truth, but none has the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

This view holds only if the wise person has seen the whole elephant and can identify partial views in relation to the whole.

I maintain that if we are talking about God, then nobody has seen the whole elephant and nothing but the elephant -- though many claim they have. More precisely, we can't be sure that anyone has, although many do so claim.

Hence, we can only testify to what we believe based on what is non-deniable and persuasive to us in light of convincing sources as tested by norms  compelling from our vantage point in history and, culture, given our particular life stories, reasoning , and interpreted experience.

But nobody can be sure of having seen, touched, felt, heard, and smelled the elephant, the whole elephant, and nothing but the elephant. Or at least, that is what I believe as of this moment.

For more, see my article: http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/truth2.html

Advice for the Day: The Importance of Definitions

My students over the decades knew that I was high on definitions (not that kind of "high" but taking to an elevated degree of emphasis).

Often I would take a statement or question offered and say, "Imagine that you cannot use that term and then tell me what you mean using other words." It was helpful either in revealing that the students really did not know what they meant or in clarifying for the rest of us what we were talking about.

I still am high on definitions. The reason is simple.
Some issues cannot be discussed intelligently unless the crucial terms are made plain so that conversation can continue on the basis of shared understandings.
Some examples:

Is it safe to fly?

Are we safer now from terrorist strikes than before 9/11?

Is the recession over?  

The list could be made very long.

Unless we know what  those who pose the question or  those who answer mean by "safe," "safer," and "recession," the exercise is of little value beyond expressing the beliefs or feelings of those asked. To the extent that perception is tantamount to reality, opinions polls can be useful. But they contribute little to understanding beyond that.

Hence, I find opinion polls on these subjects that do not define the terms or have the respondents do so merely evoke my life-long demand for definitions.

Advice for the day: Try asking for definitions next time when it is not clear what questions and answers mean. It will annoy the heck out of people, but you will feel good about it.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Complaint and Advice to Journalists

Physician, Heal Thyself. (Luke 4:23)
Know Thyself. (Temple of Apollo)
We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us (Pogo)

I am deaf to the complaint that one should not blame the messenger, since in this case, the messenger has a great deal to do with what actually gets printed or broadcast.


Imagine two scenarios at a town meeting on health care legislation:

1. A penetrating  question is quietly asked  by a knowledgeable citizen and given a reasonable answer by a member of Congress to light applause.

2. A loud, cliche-ridden question revealing mostly ignorance is raised by a fist-shaking voter to the cheers of a raucous crowd shouting and displaying all the ugly slogans so prevalent.

Which will get the most attention by journalists?

Why? Because selection of stories is not necessarily based on newsworthiness or general significance but on what will improve ratings or readership. High ratings mean ad revenue which means high profits -- the driving force. It's the American way! Hooray for free market capitalism.

This analysis is confirmed by E. J. Dionne in The Washington Post of September 3:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090202858.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Weeping for Ted Kennedy

The Gospel text for Ted Kennedy's funeral was the story of the Last Judgment, in which Jesus states that the requirement for entering the Kingdom is whether you served the sick, the poor, the hungry, the prisoner, and the stranger. For me  this is the most important reason, not the only significant one, for being so immensely grateful for the life and work of Edward Kennedy.

I had the privilege of being in his office one day in 1979. I was with a group returning with a report and recommendations from a Citizens Committee sponsored by the International Rescue Committee to

investigate the "boat people" escaping from South Vietnam. We were warmly greeted with appreciation by his staff and by the Senator. We also gave the report to  Zbigniew  Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter and testified before a House Subcomittee. But in Washington it was the pleasure of meeting and being greeted by the Kennedy I most admired that I treasure beyond all others.

My appreciation and affection for him grows as I learn more about him-- his many personal kindnesses to so many people in places high and low. His humor, hope, his political skills as passionate crusader for peace and justice combined with his ability to respect and cultivate deep personal friendships with his foes, and for so many other things.

I weep as I watch younger members of his family offer prayers highlighting his life-long passion for improving the lives of the left out and the left behind. I thank God for his life.

Even the heavens wept as family stood outside waiting to go in the church.

Teddy, Oh Teddy, how we will miss you, Oh how we will miss you.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi: Repugnant or a Manifestation of Biblical Mercy?

Hardly any American voices have been raised in support of the Scottish decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted for the Lockerbie bombing. Political response from the White House through the Secretary of State and politicians galore have deplored the decision. Yet many of them are Jews and Christians who surely know of the biblical injunction to be merciful. That the man is terminally ill and expected to live only a short time did not seem mitigate any of the righteous indignation that greeted his release.

Not only is Abdelbaset al-Megrahi near death with cancer, there is serious doubt about his guilt. Knowledgeable and responsible persons in Great Britain have called his conviction a great miscarriage of justice.

Given all this, surely the mercy shown him can be commended by Christians and Jews, as well as other morally sensitive people.

For doubts about his guilt see:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/almegrahi-questions-answered-20090821-etu7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi

PS:
Have we forgotten this news item?

Sunday July 3, 1988
The USA shot down an Iranian civil aircraft with the loss of 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070388vincennes

Scripture and Culture: Same-Sex Love

We are asked to affirm a description of sexuality based on a reality that's shaped not by Scripture but by today's culture.

This is the comment of a disappointed delegate to a church convention regarding his denomination's new open stance toward homosexuality. Unfortunately for this point of view, Scripture and culture cannot be dichotomized sharply in this fashion. The Bible was written in a cultural context and is interpreted in a cultural context. The culture of the time influences both text and interpretation, not only in form but also in substance.

There is more biblical support for slavery than condemnation of homosexuality. So why is the latter binding on us today but not the former?

If Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a moral imperative for us today, why is Leviticus 20:13?

I Timothy 2:11-12 is not authoritative for us today, why is Romans 1:26-27?

No, it is not a simple matter of obeying Scripture or culture, it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes enlightened culture is right against time-bound Scripture, e. g. in rejecting slavery and granting equality to women.

As I used to say to my students about the Bible-culture problem:

Some things abide, some things change. Which is which, and how do we know?

Prescient Me: Obama as Post-Partisan

On January 28, 2008, I wrote in a blog to Obama as a post-partisan candidate:

"You are inspiring, idealistic, and hopeful, and your message of partisan-transcending politics sure makes for a good speech and may even be a good strategy to get elected, but you are naive if you think the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice if you are elected president."

Selah!

Letter to President Obama on Health Care

Mr President:

I read in the in "The Wall Street Journal"* that the big drug companies are getting most of what they want in the health care bill. This alarms me. I fear that in order to get some kind of a bill, there will be a sellout to the insurance companies, Big Pharma, and other corporate interests and maybe to the Republicans for the sake of bipartisanship.

I know the enemies of reform are rich and powerful, but I hope you and the Democratic Party will do everything possible to fight the lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and all the other scare tactics of the combined forces of Republican and corporate opposition.

Republicans have fought every piece of progressive legislation from Social Security and Medicare right down to the present.
.
It is extremely important that Medicare be authorized to negotiate with drug companies on drug prices. The original bill was essentially written by the drug companies.

We need genuine and substantial reform, not the mere appearance of it.

I have confidence in you. Do not permit a sellout to corporate interests and reactionary ideology.

Thank you very much from an enthusiastic supporter.

Ken Cauthen

*See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779006528954995.html

Tempest in a Teapot: Boston Cop-Harvard Professor Drollery

Modern technology--24-7 news channels and the electronic gadgets that facilitate instant messages-- has contributed to the gigantic blowing up of a minor misunderstanding into a national incident of purported major significance.

A little perspective and a sense of humor all around could have had both policeman and professor laughing at a comedy of errors initiated by the good intentions of all involved -- the 9-11 caller, the cop doing his duty, and the professor getting through a recalcitrant door in his own home.

What followed is typical. Framed only by the barest of facts, people everywhere brought to bear interpretive patterns springing from their general world-views regarding race and cops and knew instantly what it all meant. From one side, "racial profiling," from the other defense of police doing their duty, often in the face of danger and amid insults from loud-mouthed offenders. Even our calm, cool, collected President blew off before all the facts blew in and spoke of police "stupidity," necessitating a retraction and a quickly planned beer party to save his own behind and to remedy a situation that threatened to get out of hand.

Of course, we need a serious dialogue about race, and this was perhaps a teachable moment. But what we usually get is two monologues in which each party recites its own preformed narrative non-stop without ever listening to the other and with no inclination to test habitual prejudices. Two monologues do not add up to one dialogue. Thank goodness for the few sane voices, e. g., Colin Powell, who urged us to enter into a willing suspension of preformed interpretive schemes and attend patiently to the all the particular details of this specific situation before drawing any conclusions.

Was "racial profiling" involved here or a conscientious cop doing his duty in response to an emergency call? Was the professor being done an injustice in his own home by a prejudiced policeman, or did he subject the officer to verbal abuse by his words, demeanor, and tone of voice beyond reasonable endurance? Or something simpler or more complex? We all should have keep quiet until all was known in full context with some sense of proportion.

I tentatively conclude at the moment subject to change that it was most likely a farce, a comedy of errors apparently precipitated by initially innocent parties doing what was reasonable under the circumstances, but both by not grasping quickly enough and fully enough exactly what was happening seemingly let it get out of hand, resulting in an unnecessary arrest provoked by perhaps too much gratuitous, incessant, persistent verbal noise from the arrestee and ending with the whole nation subjected to it for days on end without relief or surcease of repetition and with hardly any recognition of the drollery it actually was.

This headline in the August 3 Washington Post illustrates my point well:

"Gates Says He Can Joke about Arrest"

Hey, "Kip." if you and the cop could have had a sense of humor that night, you would not have been arrested. The cop would not have overreacted, and the two of you could have had a beer without Presidential assistance.

PS: My son Paul suggests this alternative title: "Brew-Ha-Ha in a Beer Mug"

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

What I Hate About Commercial TV

I hate TV for:

1. The shameless advertising of nutrition poor, sugar rich cereals like Lucky Charms, Fruit Loops, etc. on kid's programs, while claiming they are sooo good for you.

2, Contributing to the decline of manners and civility by introducing the yell and scream genre of sarcastic family interactions featuring Don Rickles type insults as seen in programs like All in the Family, Roseanne, Married with Children, and many more. Thank you, Norman Lear.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml