The recent proposal of our President to normalize the status of millions of "undocumented workers" is neither the end of the world nor a wise policy. On one level it normalizes the present state of affairs, catering to certain business interests and select political lobbies. At the same time, Bush's proposal undermines our nation's present need for sanity and security in light of 9-11.
When there is a shortage of labor, technical innovation - in agriculture and manufacturing - is accelerated. When labor is cheap and plentiful, old, lazy methods can continue as long as the bottom-line results are favorable.
Some type of guest worker program does make sense. But it is a misnomer to say that illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform. In logical terms, this is asserting the conclusion as the premise. If millions of immigrants were suddenly removed from the workforce, there would be serious short-term consequences. But the long-term benefits might actually result is a healthier, full-employment world for citizens and legal immigrants.
Education and medical costs would be drastically reduced, ameliorating budget crises in several locations. Able-bodied welfare recipients would have more options. The way would still be open for legal applicants.
The present policy is morally bankrupt, politically expedient and economically short-sighted, not to mention injurious to long-term national sovereignty.
President Bush, we can do better!
Next time: Fiscal Fracas - Making Sense of Your (Public) Money
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Advent Insights
In the midst of the rush to the malls or the websites, it is good to remember the two great traditions of the Holiday Season. A valiant band of freedom fighters resisted tyranny in 164 BC and celebrated the Hanukkah miracle. A small town called Bethlehem can only provide a barn for a baby who would split history in two and continue to inspire billions.
In 167 BC Emperor Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" made it his aim to destroy Jewish culture and faith, slaughtering a pig on an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies - the "abomination of desolation" that the books of Daniel and First and Second Maccabees record in gruesome detail. Peaceful protests and prayer vigils were met by massacres and Antiochus ended years of Jewish autonomy and enforced his hellenization program.
Fortunately, a brave band of reluctant but faithful warriors arose, lead by Judas "The Hammer" Maccabeus. By 164 BC the Temple had been reconsecrated and Antiochus was in retreat. It took a few determined and devout people to change history.
The birth of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was not the saccharine event noted by such ditties as "Away in the Manger". Joseph and Mary were caught in the "census traffic" and the only lodging was in a cave-like barn, with a feeding trough for their baby's bed. The circumstances of Mary's pregnancy, though supernatural to the couple and the watchful shepherds, were undoubtedly suspect to the village gossips.
An audience of shepherds is an ignominious beginning - they were not the elite of Palestinian social life. When the Magi arrived more than a year later, it was a cause for political unrest and the massacre of scores of infants and toddlers. The psychopathic King Herod would tolerate no rival - especially one revered by foreigners!
So Jesus went into exile - just like his ancestors in Babylon and his bretheren after the tragedy of Roman destruction in AD 70.
Judaism and Christianity at their core are not religions of power and wealth. Yes, the Kingdom of David and Solomon had its brief day in the sun and the Church (every branch) has often been corrupted by money, power and sexual scandal. The message of Hannukah and Christmas is hope through humility and a thirst for holiness. It is a message that one person with the favor of God can change the world.
Let's go "back to the future" this Advent and recover the determination of the Maccabees, the devotion of Mary and the delight of the humble shepherds. Herein lies our present and future salvation.
In 167 BC Emperor Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" made it his aim to destroy Jewish culture and faith, slaughtering a pig on an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies - the "abomination of desolation" that the books of Daniel and First and Second Maccabees record in gruesome detail. Peaceful protests and prayer vigils were met by massacres and Antiochus ended years of Jewish autonomy and enforced his hellenization program.
Fortunately, a brave band of reluctant but faithful warriors arose, lead by Judas "The Hammer" Maccabeus. By 164 BC the Temple had been reconsecrated and Antiochus was in retreat. It took a few determined and devout people to change history.
The birth of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was not the saccharine event noted by such ditties as "Away in the Manger". Joseph and Mary were caught in the "census traffic" and the only lodging was in a cave-like barn, with a feeding trough for their baby's bed. The circumstances of Mary's pregnancy, though supernatural to the couple and the watchful shepherds, were undoubtedly suspect to the village gossips.
An audience of shepherds is an ignominious beginning - they were not the elite of Palestinian social life. When the Magi arrived more than a year later, it was a cause for political unrest and the massacre of scores of infants and toddlers. The psychopathic King Herod would tolerate no rival - especially one revered by foreigners!
So Jesus went into exile - just like his ancestors in Babylon and his bretheren after the tragedy of Roman destruction in AD 70.
Judaism and Christianity at their core are not religions of power and wealth. Yes, the Kingdom of David and Solomon had its brief day in the sun and the Church (every branch) has often been corrupted by money, power and sexual scandal. The message of Hannukah and Christmas is hope through humility and a thirst for holiness. It is a message that one person with the favor of God can change the world.
Let's go "back to the future" this Advent and recover the determination of the Maccabees, the devotion of Mary and the delight of the humble shepherds. Herein lies our present and future salvation.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Sexual Politics - Revisited
Sex sells. Sexual innuendo is used to sell cars and clothing, dances and dolls, mashed potatoes and movies. Men and women are assaulted on all sides with loudspeakers proclaiming endless ecstasy and forever fulfillment through pills or purchases.
Now that I am over 40, I am bombarded with email spam and snail mail messages urging me to improve my virility a hundred ways. It is not just "sex" that is alluring me to think and act foolishly. The direct and implied messages that my present condition and experiences are not good enough is what is most heinous to the soul. Such salesmanship is the enemy of inner contentment and family harmony.
What does any of this have to do with politics?
Quite a lot, actually, when we pause to think about it.
Sexual advertising is all about sizzle and temptation and the evocation of false images and fantasies.
Much of modern politics has been reduced to the same. Politicians - male and female - spend inordinate amounts of money polishing images so far removed from reality that they often lose their integrity in the process.
"Journalists" comment on Hillary Clinton's latest look and wardrobe. Without judging her political positions, it is interesting to observe the many "looks" needed to campaign for continual attention - and the 2008 nomination.
Presidents love to appear rugged, enhancing their appeal among both genders. Again, without evaluating policy at all, consider Reagan's woodcutting and the Bush's penchant for military appearances.
Sexual politics goes deeper than image and is more subversive than the superficial image-making of campaign experts.
Women face inordinate pressures to be physically enticing while demanding gender-neutral social and work policies.
Men have to evoke "strength" and "sensitivity" and never feel secure if they are sending the right signals.
"Women's issues" always seem to focus on abortion, with the "pro-choice" cabal claiming exclusive representation of progressive females.
Meanwhile, various men's motivational groups will charge thousands of dollars to help men find "the way of the warrior."
Is there any way through the confusion?
Yes, if we are willing to "tune out" cliches and timeworn ideologies and "tune in" to lasting values and the latest legitimate research.
We need to tune out the media assault on our moral sensibilities and tune in to self-respect and relational fidelity.
We need to tune out the omnipresent lust for more unreachable experiences and tune in to contentment with the blessings of home and hearth.
We need to tune out the spinmeisters who treat us like intellectual imbeciles and tune in to sources of accurate information and enduring insights.
We need to tune out gender stereotypes and tune in to our divinely-bestowed humanity.
What would happen if we all "fasted" the internet and television for just one day and read some timeless literature and enjoyed intelligent conversation?
What would happen if men and women chose to "love the one you're with" and found satisfaction through finding new ways to bring happiness to their present partners?
While we think about such noble thoughts, delete all the emails and toss all the pitches from the mailbox and go out and take on the day with gusto!
Next time: Advent Insights
Now that I am over 40, I am bombarded with email spam and snail mail messages urging me to improve my virility a hundred ways. It is not just "sex" that is alluring me to think and act foolishly. The direct and implied messages that my present condition and experiences are not good enough is what is most heinous to the soul. Such salesmanship is the enemy of inner contentment and family harmony.
What does any of this have to do with politics?
Quite a lot, actually, when we pause to think about it.
Sexual advertising is all about sizzle and temptation and the evocation of false images and fantasies.
Much of modern politics has been reduced to the same. Politicians - male and female - spend inordinate amounts of money polishing images so far removed from reality that they often lose their integrity in the process.
"Journalists" comment on Hillary Clinton's latest look and wardrobe. Without judging her political positions, it is interesting to observe the many "looks" needed to campaign for continual attention - and the 2008 nomination.
Presidents love to appear rugged, enhancing their appeal among both genders. Again, without evaluating policy at all, consider Reagan's woodcutting and the Bush's penchant for military appearances.
Sexual politics goes deeper than image and is more subversive than the superficial image-making of campaign experts.
Women face inordinate pressures to be physically enticing while demanding gender-neutral social and work policies.
Men have to evoke "strength" and "sensitivity" and never feel secure if they are sending the right signals.
"Women's issues" always seem to focus on abortion, with the "pro-choice" cabal claiming exclusive representation of progressive females.
Meanwhile, various men's motivational groups will charge thousands of dollars to help men find "the way of the warrior."
Is there any way through the confusion?
Yes, if we are willing to "tune out" cliches and timeworn ideologies and "tune in" to lasting values and the latest legitimate research.
We need to tune out the media assault on our moral sensibilities and tune in to self-respect and relational fidelity.
We need to tune out the omnipresent lust for more unreachable experiences and tune in to contentment with the blessings of home and hearth.
We need to tune out the spinmeisters who treat us like intellectual imbeciles and tune in to sources of accurate information and enduring insights.
We need to tune out gender stereotypes and tune in to our divinely-bestowed humanity.
What would happen if we all "fasted" the internet and television for just one day and read some timeless literature and enjoyed intelligent conversation?
What would happen if men and women chose to "love the one you're with" and found satisfaction through finding new ways to bring happiness to their present partners?
While we think about such noble thoughts, delete all the emails and toss all the pitches from the mailbox and go out and take on the day with gusto!
Next time: Advent Insights
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Why Does the Definition of "Marriage" Matter?
I know you are expecting an answer to the Bambino and Billy Goat curses...But recent events demand a thoughtful response to an issue more important than politics or sports.
Recent court decisions seem to be opening the door for an unprecedented redefining of marriage and family.
Gay activists and civil libertarians hail these decisions as further progress in the struggle for equal justice for all.
Religious conservatives are outraged at what they see as the demolition of moral and social stability.
Is there any way forward that is more than a muddled middle that pleases no one? Once again, history may help us consider the future.
Sexual practices vary widely across cultures and time periods. Heterosexual and homosexual activity has often been a part of religious rituals as well as an outlet for human passions. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the most "radical" in history with its bold assertion that sexual intimacy is only for heterosexual couples in a lifelong covenant relationship.
Other cultures honor the bond of heterosexual marriage as the key to social stability, even while allowing "indulgences" outside the social contract of clan and community.
There has never been a significant world civilization that has promoted homosexual unions as equal in social status as the bond of a man and woman.
"Wait a minute!" the activists say. "Just because something is unprecedented does not mean it is wrong!"
I will concede this point, with one qualification. If all cultures at all times have seen the heterosexual bond as the most significant, isn't this at least a cause to pause and reflect before we elevate an exceptional situation to a normal and approved one?
We are treading on thin ice here. Slavery has existed in most cultures...It is now almost universally condemned (at least in theory, unless you go the Bangladesh or the Sudan). Oppressive oligarchies have ruled the world until the past two centuries (and still may, if the global corporations are involved)...and their control balanced by democracies.
Well, let's add psychological research to historical precedent. For three generations, therapists have been treating patients who suffer from the failure of one or more parents to love them and create a safe place for them. Recent books like "Fatherless America" and the popularity of various voices calling for parental responsibility all serve to remind us that "Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy". This does not mean that single-parent households are doomed to failure or that one can not recover from poor parenting.
Boys and girls need male and female role models in order to establish a secure sense of self and face a world awash in rejection and image-projection.
What do these thoughts mean for the future of "gay marriage" in the USA?
We should not rush to approve a change that ignores historical fact, multiple religious sensibilities and solid psychological insight.
This does not mean that any domestic partner arrangements are impossible or that the private acts of consenting adults should be persecuted. To redefine marriage is to take a step over a precipice for political purposes rather than morally sound reasons.
Those who oppose gay marriage are branded as fearful and intolerant, lacking in compassion and love. In fact, the opposite may be the case. Upholding enduring values for sound reasons is one of the most loving things we can do! Refusing to give in to political fads that ignore the faiths (yes, notice the plural here!) of millions of freedom-loving people is more courageous than promoting an agenda of the exception.
The real issue remains the same - what will we permit, prohibit or promote as a society?
Next week: Sexual Politics - Revisited
Recent court decisions seem to be opening the door for an unprecedented redefining of marriage and family.
Gay activists and civil libertarians hail these decisions as further progress in the struggle for equal justice for all.
Religious conservatives are outraged at what they see as the demolition of moral and social stability.
Is there any way forward that is more than a muddled middle that pleases no one? Once again, history may help us consider the future.
Sexual practices vary widely across cultures and time periods. Heterosexual and homosexual activity has often been a part of religious rituals as well as an outlet for human passions. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the most "radical" in history with its bold assertion that sexual intimacy is only for heterosexual couples in a lifelong covenant relationship.
Other cultures honor the bond of heterosexual marriage as the key to social stability, even while allowing "indulgences" outside the social contract of clan and community.
There has never been a significant world civilization that has promoted homosexual unions as equal in social status as the bond of a man and woman.
"Wait a minute!" the activists say. "Just because something is unprecedented does not mean it is wrong!"
I will concede this point, with one qualification. If all cultures at all times have seen the heterosexual bond as the most significant, isn't this at least a cause to pause and reflect before we elevate an exceptional situation to a normal and approved one?
We are treading on thin ice here. Slavery has existed in most cultures...It is now almost universally condemned (at least in theory, unless you go the Bangladesh or the Sudan). Oppressive oligarchies have ruled the world until the past two centuries (and still may, if the global corporations are involved)...and their control balanced by democracies.
Well, let's add psychological research to historical precedent. For three generations, therapists have been treating patients who suffer from the failure of one or more parents to love them and create a safe place for them. Recent books like "Fatherless America" and the popularity of various voices calling for parental responsibility all serve to remind us that "Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy". This does not mean that single-parent households are doomed to failure or that one can not recover from poor parenting.
Boys and girls need male and female role models in order to establish a secure sense of self and face a world awash in rejection and image-projection.
What do these thoughts mean for the future of "gay marriage" in the USA?
We should not rush to approve a change that ignores historical fact, multiple religious sensibilities and solid psychological insight.
This does not mean that any domestic partner arrangements are impossible or that the private acts of consenting adults should be persecuted. To redefine marriage is to take a step over a precipice for political purposes rather than morally sound reasons.
Those who oppose gay marriage are branded as fearful and intolerant, lacking in compassion and love. In fact, the opposite may be the case. Upholding enduring values for sound reasons is one of the most loving things we can do! Refusing to give in to political fads that ignore the faiths (yes, notice the plural here!) of millions of freedom-loving people is more courageous than promoting an agenda of the exception.
The real issue remains the same - what will we permit, prohibit or promote as a society?
Next week: Sexual Politics - Revisited
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Immigration Secrets
The crisis of illegal immigration will not go away by denial or more airport inspections of my birkenstock sandals. There are some not-so-secret agendas at work that touch both sides of the political spectrum. Let's focus on the crisis in the Southwest. Thousands are crossing over from Mexico each year. Here are some of the "secrets":
Conservative agribusiness and manufacturing owners like the present situation - in ensures low-cost labor and happy consumers.
Liberal political groups see present and potential voters beholden to their socioeconomic policies.
Radical groups are pandered to in Mexico and on US college campuses, dreaming of a future "bronze nation" and conveniently forgetting the oppression, slavery and human sacrifice of the Pre-Columbus era.
Some overzealous "patriots" want to seal the borders and create a Fortress America where the "good old days" (that never were) can be restored.
The "secret list" could go on for pages. What should we do?
The following questions will make no extremist happy, but perhaps the thoughtful among our nation can begin a movement toward 21st century sanity.
First, can we agree that the words "legal' and "illegal" need to matter, or the rule of law is in jeopardy? Should driver's licenses and significant benefits and opportunities be offered to only to legal residents, and not proffered for cheap votes?
Second, will we muster the wisdom to create a real guest worker program that regulates and releases people to come and work without fear and without all the same privileges as citizens?
Third, will we honestly confront history? Will the conservatives among us admit that The USA grew into a continental power through warfare against the Native Americans and Mexicans? Will the liberal consider that the way forward is not destroying the present borders, but creating mutual understanding, trade and cultural exchanges that allow the US, Indian nations and Mexico to cooperate without the loss of sovereignty?
The way forward requires moral courage. If we want to rid our hearts and land of prejudice and xenophobia, we must find guiding principles that will continue to allow the USA to be a beacon of hope.
Next time: The Bambino and Billy Goat Curses - How the Red Sox and Cubs can finally win.
Conservative agribusiness and manufacturing owners like the present situation - in ensures low-cost labor and happy consumers.
Liberal political groups see present and potential voters beholden to their socioeconomic policies.
Radical groups are pandered to in Mexico and on US college campuses, dreaming of a future "bronze nation" and conveniently forgetting the oppression, slavery and human sacrifice of the Pre-Columbus era.
Some overzealous "patriots" want to seal the borders and create a Fortress America where the "good old days" (that never were) can be restored.
The "secret list" could go on for pages. What should we do?
The following questions will make no extremist happy, but perhaps the thoughtful among our nation can begin a movement toward 21st century sanity.
First, can we agree that the words "legal' and "illegal" need to matter, or the rule of law is in jeopardy? Should driver's licenses and significant benefits and opportunities be offered to only to legal residents, and not proffered for cheap votes?
Second, will we muster the wisdom to create a real guest worker program that regulates and releases people to come and work without fear and without all the same privileges as citizens?
Third, will we honestly confront history? Will the conservatives among us admit that The USA grew into a continental power through warfare against the Native Americans and Mexicans? Will the liberal consider that the way forward is not destroying the present borders, but creating mutual understanding, trade and cultural exchanges that allow the US, Indian nations and Mexico to cooperate without the loss of sovereignty?
The way forward requires moral courage. If we want to rid our hearts and land of prejudice and xenophobia, we must find guiding principles that will continue to allow the USA to be a beacon of hope.
Next time: The Bambino and Billy Goat Curses - How the Red Sox and Cubs can finally win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
