Overwhelmed

by Ruth A. Sheets

I just checked back and saw that this is near the anniversary of the founding of the leastheardfrom blog.  I also noted that I have not made a contribution to the blog for a few months. That is really pathetic. It is not that I have nothing to say. There is a lot going on that screams for comment.

I realized as I sat down this evening that I am overwhelmed by the avalanche of dislike and disdain that some elements of America have aimed at the vast majority of Americans. 

I had hoped that with the victory of President Obama in November that some civility would seep into the work and rhetoric of Republicans. I  thought they would notice that the country is crying for some degree of unity.  Boy, was I naive!  If anything, the anti-Obama talk and the smear tactics Republicans crafted for 2012 are still in force.  The Republicans are still in “oppose everything” mode.

Sensible gun regulation should be a no-brainer, after the mass killings and the ongoing gun violence.  However, Republicans, along with their NRA handlers are doing their best to see that no changes in gun laws happen.  Well, not exactly, they want more people to own and carry guns, even in our schools.

Immigration reform should have been at the top of the Republican agenda since they received fewer than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in November.  Nearly four months after being sworn in, this congress still has not even begun to seriously look at the topic. They want more and bigger fences before they do anything for the people involved.

Republicans whine that they are not perpetrating a “war on women.”  They even send their squad of token women out for interviews on shows that claim to present a balanced  view of the issue.  While these women gush that they have everything they need, Republican legislatures are significantly limiting women’s reproductive choice and equal pay. Men in the military are allowed to dismiss cases against convicted rapists, just "because."   

Our Republican “friends” are determined to limit Social Security and Medicare because it supports the folks they refer to as “The Takers” while of course, the Republicans are “The Givers.”  Even President Obama is caving and willing to stop cost of living increases for seniors to placate Republicans who have no intention of allowing the rich to pay their fair share.

The Republican assault on education continues. Vouchers, charter schools, funding cuts all undermine our real public schools. Then, in Atlanta, the teachers who cheated on the state tests so their kids could get more funding and resources were imprisoned with bails that murderers and rapists rarely see.  Isn’t it nice we don’t have to seriously look at the relationship between low scores and poverty?  It’s teachers who are to blame for all that.

Our Supreme Court talks of “racial entitlements” and complains that same-sex marriage is just too new to be ruled on effectively.  They didn’t seem to have any trouble giving the money-soaked corporations opportunities to influence our elections anonymously, calling these corporate players,  “persons.”  What about the real persons who just want their relationships to be recognized?

So, possibly like you, I am overwhelmed.  I am appalled that we taxpayers support Republicans in congress who are not working for us.  They can’t give up cherished biases for the good of the country.  In fact, I suspect that most elected Republicans have no idea what “the common good” is.  The sad part is that I am not sure how much more aware Democrats are.  They too have their handlers for whom they must perform. 

Where does that leave those of us who do know what “the Common Good” means?

 

Define Pro-Life

by muon

You'd think, regardless how far apart the factions of this country are on the abortion issue, there's one thing we all ought to be able to agree on. No matter when you believe life starts, or for that matter, when you believe life ends, we all ought to agree that in between the start and end, human beings are alive. Anyone out there have an issue with that? Speak up.

Today I heard a priest--one I like and respect--say that we needed to protect life "from the moment of conception until the moment of..." Knowing this priest, I expected him to say "...until the moment of death." He didn't. He said "...until the moment of birth." I was dumbfounded. What about the rest of life?

To me, anyone calling themselves pro-life ought to commit to an across-the-board definition. Otherwise, you're only anti-abortion. What about the moment after birth, when that new baby may need extraordinary measures to keep him alive? If the family has no health care insurance, will that baby, "protected" until the moment of birth end up dying because he had to be born at home with no medical personnel in attendance?

What about as that baby grows up? Will he have decent nutrition? Or will he develop malnutrition issues or childhood obesity, because his neighborhood is a junk food mecca and a fresh food desert? Will he fail to get an adequate education because his public school was taken over by a for-profit company? Will he be stuck in a cycle of poverty the rest of his "life?" Will he be seduced into illegal activities as the only way to survive, because he can't get a job without an education? Will he end up being "protected" in the prison system? Will he take possibly the one honorable option open to him, and join the military, possibly to die in a war that supports only the interests of multinational corporations? Will he survive that and return home instead physically or mentally disabled, perhaps with a shorter life expectancy and a burden to society? Assuming of course, that legislators leave the social programs in place that would allow him to "live" at all.  Will he have food and fuel and clothing and healthcare, and Social Security in his later years, to allow him to stay alive?

In my opinion, you've got no business going around puffing out your chest, claiming you're pro-life, unless you commit to it whole hog. If you want to define pro-life as anti-abortion, fine, but you'd better include anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti-sickness, anti-ignorance, and anti-everything else that doesn't give each baby born a chance at a long, productive life. If you can commit to all these things, then I'm okay with your preaching to me about it from the pulpit. I may not agree with all your politics, but I'll feel you have a real respect for human life. Otherwise, don't tell me who to vote for. Come to think of it, don't tell me who to vote for either way.

This is why, this week, I'm supporting the Nuns On The Bus. They're a group of American Catholic sisters who are traveling from Des Moines to Washington, DC, trying to educate people about the plight of the poor in America. These days, we aren't talking about the poor as a tiny percentage of the population--half of the population earns less than $35,000 annually. The poverty level right now includes nearly a quarter of all Americans. The Nuns are bringing attention to Republican policies, and particularly the Paul Ryan budget, which would eliminate so many social programs that at least give poorer Americans a chance to survive past those "protected" months before birth.

The Nuns were told by the Catholic hierarchy to quit wasting all their time on the poor and instead, hop aboard the anti-abortion bandwagon. The sisters refused. They understand the meaning of pro-life.

Go sisters!

Disturbing Phenomenon

by Ruth A. Sheets

I have noticed a troubling phenomenon among my students. Several of my best readers hate reading and tell me that they only read if they have to and then, they try to get away with reading the least possible.  Many of my good math students hate math and do just enough to get the grade they can live with.

What is going on here?  Why should highly intelligent young people dislike or even hate what they do well?  One would think that a person would be proud of what they do well and would want to do it often. 

I have not been able to find anything related to the psychology of this, but it doesn’t seem to be present just in young people in a disadvantaged community.  Our nation seems to be doing the same thing. 

Our government is really good at some things:  Social programs including medical care and research, protecting the environment, keeping food safe, regulating businesses that could get carried away with greed and speculation, moving mail.

Instead of allowing the government to do what it does well, we are trying to convince ourselves that we hate the social programs and want to end protective regulations.  We are being overwhelmed with advertising to convince us that what we are actually doing well doesn’t work and must be scrapped. 

What would these be replaced with?  Privatization, a totally free market, trickle down economics and other programs which have not proven successful are repeatedly proposed.  Why? What are we thinking?  

My students’ struggles will be much greater because they do not value what they do well.  I suspect that our nation’s struggles, too, will be more difficult because we choose not to value and fight for our government and give it the resources to do what it does well.   

LOOKING FOR PC

One might think from the title that this piece is about buying a home computer or expecting people to be politically correct.  Neither is the theme for this blog.  I want to discuss “Political Courage.” 

As our president and congress are working their way toward some kind of deal for raising the ceiling on our ability to borrow money, and on cutting the deficit, I have heard a lot of talk about political courage. 

It began with Paul Ryan’s proposed budget proposal which was called “courageous”, particularly in the media.  When examined more carefully, it showed little courage.  How much courage does it take to cut critical programs and funding for the most vulnerable people?  It seems only the “bleeding heart liberals” will fight to stop that (and we all know how effective they are).

Republicans, especially the Tea Party variety, are so tax-averse that they can’t conceive of even the wealthiest 2% paying a bit more to help get the country on an even keel.  Where is the courage?  Since no one is exactly thrilled with having to pay taxes, it does not require courage to stand unmoving against any kind of tax increase.  There is no problem with cutting the poor, elderly, and disabled off because even inept representatives and senators will never be in that position.  Once one is in Congress, health care and pensions are taken care of for life (through taxes, of course).

The Democrats are desperately watching the programs to improve the well-being in the country evaporate.  They've always supported these programs and, thus,  cling stubbornly to every aspect of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  These programs do need reworking and reshaping to reflect the needs of 21st Century America.  One can  understand their fear and reluctance to touch those programs because reworking them could devastate these supports, so desperately needed by so many.  Political courage requires respected Democrats to stand up and make realistic, practical suggestions for changes that would benefit everyone (e.g., have Social Security taxes paid on all income, raise the age to 70 years for collecting, discontinue Social Security for people earning more than $100,000.00 a year, but still allow Medicare when needed). 

And then there’s the military industrial complex!  Who has the guts to stand up to that monster?  No courage here!

There seems to be little courage on the state and local levels either.  Some governors and mayors are getting media attention by cutting programs, laying off state workers, blaming them for the state’s/city’s  woes.  It plays well, but isn’t true.  Now there are more folks unemployed.  Again, they hit programs that serve the disadvantaged who won’t make much of a fuss.  The politicians look like heroes because budgets are “balanced.” 

Political courage is standing up for what will be most helpful to the largest number of people.  It means holding personal standards of excellence and integrity that are reflected in one’s words and actions.  It requires one to explain positions to constituents in clear, honest language.  It also means acknowledging one’s weaknesses and mistakes and being able to grow in wisdom and understanding.

  

Courageous leaders might not be reelected, but they would certainly set a good example for the rest of America.  Maybe it could start a trend. 

Peace,

Ruth