“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” said Yogi Berra. Once again Iowa school finance is caught on the political football field of the Iowa legislature. And education’s cause is not helped by our governor pushing his own version of education reform.
As a former school board director, I know we’ve been down this road before – and relatively recently. Each year, local schools plan their budgets, including setting local tax levies. This requires the state legislature to determine allowable growth (the percentage increase per pupil they can expect from the state). Due to the economy, schools are coming off of a year of 0% allowable growth and hoping to see 2-4% for 2014.
However thanks to the governor’s education reform plan, which includes a study of teacher compensation, Governor Branstad is proposing a delay to setting allowable growth. The governor wants to wait a year to see what the study proposes before he sets allowable growth. This presumes the task force will not only have proposals, but that they will be adopted and effective on July 1, 2013.
Iowa law requires the legislature to set allowable growth within 30 days after the governor submits a budget proposal. Although the Senate met that deadline, passing legislation with 4% allowable growth, the House instead passed a bill to set allowable growth for two years on odd numbered years.
“What’s the problem?” you may ask. Well, by Iowa law, schools must issue contracts and certify their budgets by April 15 each year. And I’ll give you one guess which governor set that policy. Yup – Governor Branstad in his first round as Iowa’s governor.
But how can schools develop a budget and set their tax rates without knowing how much funding they will receive?
If education is really a priority, shouldn’t we be allocating the resources for schools to improve student achievement, implement the Iowa Core Curriculum already underway and prepare Iowa’s kids for the 21st century? These kids are already in school; how do they benefit if we cut funding for these programs midstream? And with Iowa’s economy showing signs of improvement, shouldn’t our children benefit?
Improving student achievement has less to do with making legislative policy changes than with providing the resources to make it happen. In point of fact, public officials’ job is taxing and spending – first and foremost. So I’d like my state legislature to get busy and fund our schools.
Because as a parent, while my daughter is in school, I want the legislature to make sure funds are available to keep her school operating. And before the legislature and governor go making radical changes to how my school operates, I want them to listen to my local teachers, principals and parents. We know our kids and our community, and we have been working together to develop a quality program.
And we’re not alone. Schools across Iowa have been working hard to improve their programs and meet the requirements of the last big school reform plan – No Child Left Behind.
So I think it’s time for the governor and legislature to pony up and put their money where their mouth is. Pass allowable growth, and make sure our kids’ education continues uninterrupted.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Are abortion and contraception health care?
I’ve had two abortions. Shocked? I certainly was when I learned D & Cs (dilation and curettage) are often coded as abortions for insurance purposes. Suddenly, abortion became a very personal issue.
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Keystone Pipeline: Do benefits outweigh risk?
I was pleased to see President Obama made a decision with regard to the Keystone Pipeline last week. However, he left the door open to continue the project, so I’m not ready to celebrate.
I developed an interest in water supplies after teaching a Bible study on globalization a couple of years ago. From municipalities selling water rights to bottling companies to water supplies poisoned by fracking (the source of Keystone’s oil) and other industrial processes, I learned water is becoming an embattled resource due to growing scarcity.
So the idea of running an oil pipeline across one of the largest water sources in our country, the Ogallala Aquifer, concerns me. And after the Fukishima reactor disaster last year, I am skeptical when ads (paid for by an energy consortium) quote a single geology professor saying, “I guarantee” Keystone’s tar sands oil will NOT contaminate our water supply. I believe the energy company building the Fukishima plant gave Japanese residents similar guarantees. Yet how many times have we seen Mother Nature deliver unanticipated destruction?
I understand the hope that the pipeline will supply jobs, but the few studies conducted show the industry’s estimates are high.
A recent study by Cornell University disputes the industry’s 140,000 jobs (direct and indirect) estimate, noting a number of negative factors including: the temporary nature of the jobs, many of which will be filled by non-local workers, and the possibility of related job losses due to higher Midwestern fuel prices, spills, pollution and costs from climate change. To quantify it further, some estimates ballpark the real job numbers at 2,500 to 4,650 (temporary) jobs.
And did you catch the reference to higher Midwestern fuel prices? Contrary to the pro-pipeline ads, the Cornell report states: “KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel.” Of course, China is one of the major markets for this oil.
As I watch the rise of wind turbines on our horizons, I wonder which project is creating safer long term energy solutions. And I have to ask again, do the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the risks to our water supply and quality of life? Does the potential for 5,000 temporary jobs outweigh the cost of higher fuel prices?
The government’s environmental impact study includes information about leaks in existing pipelines included in the project, specifically Ludden, N.D., so it’s a given leaks will occur. To quote this study: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.”
Before we get an answer the hard way, I think we should look for renewable energy sources to replace the oil and study the project further. And perhaps Keystone’s resources would be better spent to research alternative energy sources as well.
In the meantime, read and study for yourself.
Executive Summary: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX...
Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html
Cornell’s full report: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Keys...
I developed an interest in water supplies after teaching a Bible study on globalization a couple of years ago. From municipalities selling water rights to bottling companies to water supplies poisoned by fracking (the source of Keystone’s oil) and other industrial processes, I learned water is becoming an embattled resource due to growing scarcity.
So the idea of running an oil pipeline across one of the largest water sources in our country, the Ogallala Aquifer, concerns me. And after the Fukishima reactor disaster last year, I am skeptical when ads (paid for by an energy consortium) quote a single geology professor saying, “I guarantee” Keystone’s tar sands oil will NOT contaminate our water supply. I believe the energy company building the Fukishima plant gave Japanese residents similar guarantees. Yet how many times have we seen Mother Nature deliver unanticipated destruction?
I understand the hope that the pipeline will supply jobs, but the few studies conducted show the industry’s estimates are high.
A recent study by Cornell University disputes the industry’s 140,000 jobs (direct and indirect) estimate, noting a number of negative factors including: the temporary nature of the jobs, many of which will be filled by non-local workers, and the possibility of related job losses due to higher Midwestern fuel prices, spills, pollution and costs from climate change. To quantify it further, some estimates ballpark the real job numbers at 2,500 to 4,650 (temporary) jobs.
And did you catch the reference to higher Midwestern fuel prices? Contrary to the pro-pipeline ads, the Cornell report states: “KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel.” Of course, China is one of the major markets for this oil.
As I watch the rise of wind turbines on our horizons, I wonder which project is creating safer long term energy solutions. And I have to ask again, do the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the risks to our water supply and quality of life? Does the potential for 5,000 temporary jobs outweigh the cost of higher fuel prices?
The government’s environmental impact study includes information about leaks in existing pipelines included in the project, specifically Ludden, N.D., so it’s a given leaks will occur. To quote this study: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.”
Before we get an answer the hard way, I think we should look for renewable energy sources to replace the oil and study the project further. And perhaps Keystone’s resources would be better spent to research alternative energy sources as well.
In the meantime, read and study for yourself.
Executive Summary: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX...
Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html
Cornell’s full report: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Keys...
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Caucuses and Primaries: Do you know the difference between the two?
Hallelujah, the caucuses are over! My phone no longer rings off the hook, we get through meals uninterrupted, and local TV news reporters are back to covering accidents, crimes and sporting events.
But after surviving the latest round of political reporting, I have to wonder how many people really understand our political system? Let me give you a couple of examples.
On the morning of the caucuses, I was watching the early news on one of the three Omaha network affiliates. The reporter interviewing a metro-area Republican Party official asked about the anticipated number of voters attending. However, the caucuses aren’t open to every voter; they are for the political parties’ members.
Those participating must choose which party caucus to attend and must be willing to register as a party member, even if it’s only temporarily.
Generally only a fraction of each party’s registered voters, usually those most active, participate in the caucuses.
Another point to remember is each party’s rules are different.
While the Republican Party uses a secret ballot voting system for caucus goers to choose their candidate, Democrats use a system of conversation, wrangling and consensus to distribute elected delegates to chosen candidates.
Iowa is one of few states still using the caucus system; most have primaries. But even the primaries, in which votes are cast, are a function of the parties.
And rules vary from state to state. Some states only allow party members to vote; others require open primaries that allow voters of any party to participate in the primary of their choice.
I bring it up because the same reporter used the terms “primary” and “caucus” as though they are interchangeable.
But not only do local reporters get things wrong. I was disappointed to hear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a political reporter who usually does better research than most, complaining the Iowa caucuses aren’t democratic. Hello? Party function, Rachel.
Which leads me to ask if American citizens know enough about our system and candidates to make informed decisions? It’s a question with which the founding fathers wrestled. It’s why our system elects presidents via both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For those who don’t know, the Electoral College began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and was established as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and by the popular vote. Citizens vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
However I find low citizen participation the most disappointing part of our system. For a country known for promoting its democracy, too many citizens choose NOT to exercise their rights. I am speaking from experience.
Although I have always voted in state and national elections and advocated on individual issues, I was a registered independent for 30 years.
But having lived most of my life in states with closed primaries and caucuses, I finally got tired of letting others choose my candidates for the general election.
So instead of complaining about my choices in 2008, I decided to participate in the process. I recommend others do the same.
You learn a lot by doing.
But after surviving the latest round of political reporting, I have to wonder how many people really understand our political system? Let me give you a couple of examples.
On the morning of the caucuses, I was watching the early news on one of the three Omaha network affiliates. The reporter interviewing a metro-area Republican Party official asked about the anticipated number of voters attending. However, the caucuses aren’t open to every voter; they are for the political parties’ members.
Those participating must choose which party caucus to attend and must be willing to register as a party member, even if it’s only temporarily.
Generally only a fraction of each party’s registered voters, usually those most active, participate in the caucuses.
Another point to remember is each party’s rules are different.
While the Republican Party uses a secret ballot voting system for caucus goers to choose their candidate, Democrats use a system of conversation, wrangling and consensus to distribute elected delegates to chosen candidates.
Iowa is one of few states still using the caucus system; most have primaries. But even the primaries, in which votes are cast, are a function of the parties.
And rules vary from state to state. Some states only allow party members to vote; others require open primaries that allow voters of any party to participate in the primary of their choice.
I bring it up because the same reporter used the terms “primary” and “caucus” as though they are interchangeable.
But not only do local reporters get things wrong. I was disappointed to hear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a political reporter who usually does better research than most, complaining the Iowa caucuses aren’t democratic. Hello? Party function, Rachel.
Which leads me to ask if American citizens know enough about our system and candidates to make informed decisions? It’s a question with which the founding fathers wrestled. It’s why our system elects presidents via both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For those who don’t know, the Electoral College began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and was established as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and by the popular vote. Citizens vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
However I find low citizen participation the most disappointing part of our system. For a country known for promoting its democracy, too many citizens choose NOT to exercise their rights. I am speaking from experience.
Although I have always voted in state and national elections and advocated on individual issues, I was a registered independent for 30 years.
But having lived most of my life in states with closed primaries and caucuses, I finally got tired of letting others choose my candidates for the general election.
So instead of complaining about my choices in 2008, I decided to participate in the process. I recommend others do the same.
You learn a lot by doing.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Whatever happened to statesmanship?
“I got a lot of problems with you people!” yells George Costanza’s father on Seinfeld during the Festivus Airing of the Grievances.
And that’s how I felt watching our Congressional Republicans during the fight to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.
At a time when millions of Americans cannot find work and many families open empty cupboards the latter half of every month, House Republicans were willing to raise taxes on working people and leave the unemployed empty handed.
For what? To protect wealthy Americans and corporate special interests, in this case, a Canadian energy company lobbying to build the Keystone pipeline – an enterprise with no proven long-term benefits and major environmental risks.
It’s like watching a parent with a tantrum-throwing toddler -- on one side is a reasonable willingness to work together while on the other is a determination to obstruct everything that might give the other party and, in most cases 99 percent of voters, help.
That’s about the level of conversation we’ve seen from Congress the last three years, especially since electing a group of Tea Party Republicans in 2010. And it becomes more infuriating the longer this recession lasts.
But most importantly to these Republican representatives, such obstruction prevents a Democratic president from “scoring” what they see as only a political win. I’ve heard some of these public officials say, “It’s a matter of principle.”
I have to question the principles of anyone willing to let the entire country slide off a cliff by shutting down our government and cutting off paychecks – employment, unemployment, Social Security – to the people most in need. Is it principled to deliberately destroy the nation’s financial standing because you disagree with the political philosophy of the democratically elected president and the opposition party?
And is it principled to ignore the voters who elected you to score political victories when these same voters desperately need policies to provide aid and encourage hiring? Is it principled to argue for policies proven, disastrously I might add based on the last 10 years, NOT to work, such as income tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations?
At a time when many Americans would take any work they could get, is it principled to sit on your hands instead of doing the work voters elected you to do?
Perhaps these Tea Party Republicans don’t understand they have been elected as statesmen.
Statesmanship requires conversing with the opposition to find common ground. It also requires a willingness to move, explore options and compromise to pass legislation that benefits as many citizens as possible. (And corporations are not citizens!)
It’s a balancing act because a statesman understands his or her constituents include a variety of interests. But instead, our current Congressional Republicans have decided obstructing everything proposed by the opposition is their job.
That’s the level of “public service” voters get when we elect representatives based solely on political advertisements, campaign speeches and party affiliation.
And let’s be honest, isn’t that what a lot of us do?
Until Americans demand information on policy, track legislation and voting records, and do their homework on candidates for office, it’s all we’re going to get.
Because it’s not the party that matters, it’s the person. And everybody has a history.
So make sure you do your homework before you cast your vote. The information is out there if you choose to access it.
And that’s how I felt watching our Congressional Republicans during the fight to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.
At a time when millions of Americans cannot find work and many families open empty cupboards the latter half of every month, House Republicans were willing to raise taxes on working people and leave the unemployed empty handed.
For what? To protect wealthy Americans and corporate special interests, in this case, a Canadian energy company lobbying to build the Keystone pipeline – an enterprise with no proven long-term benefits and major environmental risks.
It’s like watching a parent with a tantrum-throwing toddler -- on one side is a reasonable willingness to work together while on the other is a determination to obstruct everything that might give the other party and, in most cases 99 percent of voters, help.
That’s about the level of conversation we’ve seen from Congress the last three years, especially since electing a group of Tea Party Republicans in 2010. And it becomes more infuriating the longer this recession lasts.
But most importantly to these Republican representatives, such obstruction prevents a Democratic president from “scoring” what they see as only a political win. I’ve heard some of these public officials say, “It’s a matter of principle.”
I have to question the principles of anyone willing to let the entire country slide off a cliff by shutting down our government and cutting off paychecks – employment, unemployment, Social Security – to the people most in need. Is it principled to deliberately destroy the nation’s financial standing because you disagree with the political philosophy of the democratically elected president and the opposition party?
And is it principled to ignore the voters who elected you to score political victories when these same voters desperately need policies to provide aid and encourage hiring? Is it principled to argue for policies proven, disastrously I might add based on the last 10 years, NOT to work, such as income tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations?
At a time when many Americans would take any work they could get, is it principled to sit on your hands instead of doing the work voters elected you to do?
Perhaps these Tea Party Republicans don’t understand they have been elected as statesmen.
Statesmanship requires conversing with the opposition to find common ground. It also requires a willingness to move, explore options and compromise to pass legislation that benefits as many citizens as possible. (And corporations are not citizens!)
It’s a balancing act because a statesman understands his or her constituents include a variety of interests. But instead, our current Congressional Republicans have decided obstructing everything proposed by the opposition is their job.
That’s the level of “public service” voters get when we elect representatives based solely on political advertisements, campaign speeches and party affiliation.
And let’s be honest, isn’t that what a lot of us do?
Until Americans demand information on policy, track legislation and voting records, and do their homework on candidates for office, it’s all we’re going to get.
Because it’s not the party that matters, it’s the person. And everybody has a history.
So make sure you do your homework before you cast your vote. The information is out there if you choose to access it.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Is there a war on Christmas? It's not that simple
“Whatever this is, Hermione, it’s not simple,” Harry Potter tells his best friend in the fifth film of the series of the same name. And that’s what I keep thinking as I watch the annual “War on Christmas/Christianity” being waged.
This whole meme strikes me as another manufactured crisis drummed up to getting credulous Christians up in arms over the separation of church and state, which was developed, ironically, to protect the practice of faith.
Are you confused? Well, the older I get the more I’m coming to accept that many of the solutions we seek are “counter-intuitive.” In other words, they are not simple. And the separation of church and state is but one example.
I choose to address this now because it keeps coming up. I had a woman recently express surprise when I mentioned I’d sung The Hallelujah Chorus four consecutive years when I was in public high school. “Really?” she asked incredulous. For my part, I was surprised anyone would think the song forbidden. I don’t think of that song as religious so much as a classical piece of music history. And that highlights how much our individual viewpoints can vary.
Having served for seven-plus years on a school board, I’d like to add that we didn’t get too fussed about separation of church and state. We tried to follow the law, which prohibits teaching the practices of ANY faith in a public school. However, religious texts can be studied as literature or different religions as cultural history. Faith groups were welcome to use our facilities as a meeting space when available; we offered, with the help of the local ministerial association, an optional baccalaureate for graduates. We tried to honor Wednesday evenings as a time for church activities.
As a Christian in this country, I have never felt discriminated against or persecuted because of my faith. I’d note public institutions’ more careful adherence to the separation of church and state in recent years. But as a country growing ever more diverse and having family of another faith myself, I accept these changes as proof of our country’s guarantee that all beliefs will be respected in our civic life. I take that guarantee as a protection, rather than an assault. When and if I become a minority, I would welcome those protections, wouldn’t you?
And regarding Christmas, how can we complain? Isn’t Christmas the only religious holiday in our country written into the federal holiday calendar? Frankly the only war on Christmas I see is the way American business has used it to sell, sell, sell. It’s a marketing bonanza.
So where do these feelings of persecution toward Christmas/Christianity come from? Because from my perspective, there is no war on Christianity. Instead I feel others are using the Christian label to separate me from my Jewish, agnostic, Islamic, etc., brothers and sisters. As I celebrate the birth of the one my church calls The Prince of Peace, I suggest we abandon this war of words.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays.
This whole meme strikes me as another manufactured crisis drummed up to getting credulous Christians up in arms over the separation of church and state, which was developed, ironically, to protect the practice of faith.
Are you confused? Well, the older I get the more I’m coming to accept that many of the solutions we seek are “counter-intuitive.” In other words, they are not simple. And the separation of church and state is but one example.
I choose to address this now because it keeps coming up. I had a woman recently express surprise when I mentioned I’d sung The Hallelujah Chorus four consecutive years when I was in public high school. “Really?” she asked incredulous. For my part, I was surprised anyone would think the song forbidden. I don’t think of that song as religious so much as a classical piece of music history. And that highlights how much our individual viewpoints can vary.
Having served for seven-plus years on a school board, I’d like to add that we didn’t get too fussed about separation of church and state. We tried to follow the law, which prohibits teaching the practices of ANY faith in a public school. However, religious texts can be studied as literature or different religions as cultural history. Faith groups were welcome to use our facilities as a meeting space when available; we offered, with the help of the local ministerial association, an optional baccalaureate for graduates. We tried to honor Wednesday evenings as a time for church activities.
As a Christian in this country, I have never felt discriminated against or persecuted because of my faith. I’d note public institutions’ more careful adherence to the separation of church and state in recent years. But as a country growing ever more diverse and having family of another faith myself, I accept these changes as proof of our country’s guarantee that all beliefs will be respected in our civic life. I take that guarantee as a protection, rather than an assault. When and if I become a minority, I would welcome those protections, wouldn’t you?
And regarding Christmas, how can we complain? Isn’t Christmas the only religious holiday in our country written into the federal holiday calendar? Frankly the only war on Christmas I see is the way American business has used it to sell, sell, sell. It’s a marketing bonanza.
So where do these feelings of persecution toward Christmas/Christianity come from? Because from my perspective, there is no war on Christianity. Instead I feel others are using the Christian label to separate me from my Jewish, agnostic, Islamic, etc., brothers and sisters. As I celebrate the birth of the one my church calls The Prince of Peace, I suggest we abandon this war of words.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Does the Occupy movment need a message?
Note: This is the latest Miner Queries column from The Red Oak Express
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’ve seen reports about Occupy Wall Street (OWS). And if you watch mainstream news, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk about how the movement “doesn’t have a message or leaders.” Consequently, the tone is dismissive.
Mainstream corporate media have two reasons for such comments:
1. Corporate media owners and their cohorts on Wall Street want to know leaders, so they can remove them and possibly squelch what they see as a growing threat.
2. Today’s corporate media personalities don’t research and report so much as they present information from other sources, often via news releases. (I know this because I do just that for a living.) Newsrooms across America have been gutted of reporters and, especially broadcast media, pick up and use what comes in via the wires, the newspaper, Internet and fax machine. That’s why you can flip channels and see the same story told in almost the same words on every station at nearly the same time!
So key to OWS’s sustainability is its horizontal organization with no individual leaders. Additionally, without specific messages for press to take down stenographically, it requires actual reporting. That means time and money, which cuts corporate media profit – because news in now a business, not a public service.
As I watch events unfold, I keep thinking of my mother, who loved to say, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease!” Over the years I’ve learned the truth of that idiom. In the workplace, I learned to speak up if I wanted one of the new PCs coming in the next upgrades. Or if I was interested in a plum assignment, I didn’t just expect the boss to read my mind.
Unfortunately, I think voters in America quit squeaking generations ago. After casting a vote, it’s as if we just expect the winners to read our collective mind. We go back to daily life and grumble under our breath when we get nothing.
But even those who’ve spent time advocating for candidates and policies don’t seem to understand OWS. I participate in an e-mail dialogue group, and among this well read liberal group, concerns about OWS’ lack of message and organization exist. As I told them, those of us from older generations miss much of what is happening among our youth. We (parents and grandparents) assume OWS is just a rag-tag group camping on Wall Street.
I have read several articles about new types of efforts, including some technology tools, being created to support OWS. Additionally, I think we underestimate the ability of youth to combat poisonous media messaging. These young adults have been brought up with technology. They know how propaganda is created, and they take media reports with a grain of salt. They don't get their news from the places we do.
These young people give me hope. They will run circles around those who try to stop them. They don't believe in political parties, because they've grown up watching the parties give their parents nothing. I know that's how my 23-year-old son feels.
We're assuming this movement must have specific goals. But, I don't think it amounts to much more than to ask people to PARTICIPATE in our common life, which in America is supposed to be democracy. Actually, that may be the best message of all.
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’ve seen reports about Occupy Wall Street (OWS). And if you watch mainstream news, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk about how the movement “doesn’t have a message or leaders.” Consequently, the tone is dismissive.
Mainstream corporate media have two reasons for such comments:
1. Corporate media owners and their cohorts on Wall Street want to know leaders, so they can remove them and possibly squelch what they see as a growing threat.
2. Today’s corporate media personalities don’t research and report so much as they present information from other sources, often via news releases. (I know this because I do just that for a living.) Newsrooms across America have been gutted of reporters and, especially broadcast media, pick up and use what comes in via the wires, the newspaper, Internet and fax machine. That’s why you can flip channels and see the same story told in almost the same words on every station at nearly the same time!
So key to OWS’s sustainability is its horizontal organization with no individual leaders. Additionally, without specific messages for press to take down stenographically, it requires actual reporting. That means time and money, which cuts corporate media profit – because news in now a business, not a public service.
As I watch events unfold, I keep thinking of my mother, who loved to say, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease!” Over the years I’ve learned the truth of that idiom. In the workplace, I learned to speak up if I wanted one of the new PCs coming in the next upgrades. Or if I was interested in a plum assignment, I didn’t just expect the boss to read my mind.
Unfortunately, I think voters in America quit squeaking generations ago. After casting a vote, it’s as if we just expect the winners to read our collective mind. We go back to daily life and grumble under our breath when we get nothing.
But even those who’ve spent time advocating for candidates and policies don’t seem to understand OWS. I participate in an e-mail dialogue group, and among this well read liberal group, concerns about OWS’ lack of message and organization exist. As I told them, those of us from older generations miss much of what is happening among our youth. We (parents and grandparents) assume OWS is just a rag-tag group camping on Wall Street.
I have read several articles about new types of efforts, including some technology tools, being created to support OWS. Additionally, I think we underestimate the ability of youth to combat poisonous media messaging. These young adults have been brought up with technology. They know how propaganda is created, and they take media reports with a grain of salt. They don't get their news from the places we do.
These young people give me hope. They will run circles around those who try to stop them. They don't believe in political parties, because they've grown up watching the parties give their parents nothing. I know that's how my 23-year-old son feels.
We're assuming this movement must have specific goals. But, I don't think it amounts to much more than to ask people to PARTICIPATE in our common life, which in America is supposed to be democracy. Actually, that may be the best message of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
