--by Mike Adams
In Senator John McCain’s speech to the Republican National Convention, he asked the American public to join him in fighting for America, to join him in fighting for the change that he claims we need and the change he claims he will deliver. I was at first dubious, but after considering the Senator from Arizona, I acknowledged that Senator McCain does represent a kind of change; Senator McCain has gone against his party, he has reached across partisan lines to stand for what he believed to be right. He has demonstrated that he is tough, dedicated and generally true to course. During the last two years, Senator McCain has unfortunately changed his mind on several important issues and he stands with other Washington Republicans on the wrong side of several important issues. He has changed his mind and now supports more tax breaks to America’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. He has changed his mind and now supports ‘soft torture’ which he opposed recently and really gained many people’s respect for his opposition to the Republican Party line. He has changed his mind and now supports off shore drilling. This is a surprise, because Senator McCain certainly already knows that off shore drilling and increased drilling in Alaska won’t begin to make a dent in our energy needs. Senator McCain knows that offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska will certainly add to already high pollution levels and add to global warming.
Obviously Senator McCain is capable of change and his most recent changes have given him leadership of the Republican Party. The sad truth is that he is not offering the kind of change that America needs. We do not need a leader who used to work for what he thought was right even when it cost him politically. We don’t need a leader who won’t push meaningful policies aimed at curbing oil consumption. We don’t need a leader who’s ‘change‘ platform will do nothing to reduce carbon emission who’s ‘change’ platform will encourage ever more dramatic climate change. Not only do we not need that leader or that kind of change, in reality, we can not afford it. In today’s world, the risks are too great, the times are too desperate and McCain is too dangerous to put in charge. The last eight years have shown us what having Republican leadership in the Whitehouse produces.
Record high deficits, record high gas prices, record high food prices, record high home foreclosures, the highest unemployment in more than half a decade, degrading public schools, growing poverty and a collective concern because our work lives and our country are headed in the wrong direction. We can not afford that and we can not give the Republicans four more years. We can not entrust them with our future, our environment, our children’s education and our health care. We must take back our country in this election.
Politics, Religion, Common Sense. Can they all mix? I think so. Please read and definitely leave comments! Thanks!!
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
A Woman's Worth
--by Mike Adams
My wife, a full time employee of our local school district, earns nearly 13,000 dollars a year. Our child care cost is $5400 a year for our three year old son, whom my sister takes care of for a lesser cost than other day care arrangements. This means my wife brings home $7600 a year after covering a basic and necessary expenses.
I have to be honest; this makes me feel rather angry. I can’t understand why an instructional assistant is only worth $13,000 a year. In a country where we profess to highly value our next generation; in this country with its federal mandate named, ‘No Child Left Behind,’ it seems that somehow, we could provide enough pay for child care professionals, for teachers and teachers’ assistants that they, the people who we entrust with our children’s futures aren’t left behind. I wholeheartedly disagree with any characterization of the teacher’s union as a “special interest group” at least in terms similar to the tobacco lobby being a special interest group. Shouldn’t all Americans take a particular interest in the quality our children’s educations and the livelihood of those who care for our next generation. Our children are our future, they will care for of us when we get older, they will run the government when we retire and on a personal level, they are our hopes and our dreams, they are our greatest investments. So I ask, why not loosen the purse strings and pay a reasonable wage to those with whom we entrust our kids?
I have heard some conservatives respond that, really, we want teachers who love teaching so much that they would teach even if they weren’t getting paid at all. That argument sounds good on the surface…I mean, really, I want my kids to be taught by someone who is passionate about and loves teaching, but seriously, no one should need to love teaching so much that they are willing to live in poverty or near poverty and neglect their own children’s financial needs in order to work in the school system.
Think about it, what if we decided that we really only want CEO’s who love that line of work so much that they would do it for free. What about lawyers or cosmetic surgeons or accountants, shouldn’t we find people who will do those tasks for free too?
Seriously though, let’s look at qualifications and pay; a teacher must earn a four year degree and then a teaching credential. Additionally, they have annual education requirements, which they are expected to pay from their own income. By necessity, teachers are well educated with five or six years in college before they qualify to lead a classroom. Why is their work so un-valued in our society that after completing all of that higher education, a teacher starts out earning only $32,000 per year?
I can’t understand why, an entry level computer technician, with no college degree, is able to earn more money than a teacher with five or six years of college. I worry that our values are mixed up, that our vision is blurry and that we have lost sight of some key American values.
In the 2008 Presidential race, there was much talk about sexism. It was used in the Democratic primaries and again in the general election. I’m not sure whether sexism played a greater role than did racism in the 2008 election year, however, I can promise you that every day across this country sexism plays a role in the lives of everyday Americans.
Consider the fact that in general, a single mother is considered to be a tragedy, or in Rush Limbaugh’s world, a slacker. However, a single father is something of a hero. We have a double standard for what kind of role women are expected to take with their children versus what is expected of men.
Women are expected to be nurturing, loving and in general caring providers for their children; they cook, clean and take care of the soccer schedule. They are expected to put their careers on hold and stay home for the important work of parenting. By contrast, men go to work and are expected to earn enough money to support the family. Men are expected to work late, attend meetings or even get a second job if necessary. If a child has to stay home sick, a mother is almost always the one to take sick leave or miss a work day. In my family, when we run out of sick days, it is usually my wife who stays home because her work for the schools pays so much less than my work.
Often, I wonder if this isn’t because of the nature of my wife’s work. Because she takes care of children for a living and I take care of more pressing issues, like some one’s Microsoft Word Program won’t start or they really want flash installed on their computer. I believe that our society has relegated work, which is historically considered “women’s work” to a lower pay scale. Jobs like Daycare Provider, school teachers, Teacher’s Aids, house cleaners. None of them pays particularly well, all of them are considered by and large to be women’s jobs.
It seems that in our society, we pretend to value our children above all else, but in reality, we won’t pay a good wage to those people who we entrust with our children’s safety and future, as a country, we spend more money building prisons than we do building schools. Somewhere deep inside our collective unconscious, we still seem to believe that those tasks are a woman’s tasks…a stay at home mother’s tasks…unpaid and economically un-valuable tasks. The question is when will we realize that in fact, providing care and education for the next generation is invaluable work worthy of good pay and worthy of our deepest respect.
My wife, a full time employee of our local school district, earns nearly 13,000 dollars a year. Our child care cost is $5400 a year for our three year old son, whom my sister takes care of for a lesser cost than other day care arrangements. This means my wife brings home $7600 a year after covering a basic and necessary expenses.
I have to be honest; this makes me feel rather angry. I can’t understand why an instructional assistant is only worth $13,000 a year. In a country where we profess to highly value our next generation; in this country with its federal mandate named, ‘No Child Left Behind,’ it seems that somehow, we could provide enough pay for child care professionals, for teachers and teachers’ assistants that they, the people who we entrust with our children’s futures aren’t left behind. I wholeheartedly disagree with any characterization of the teacher’s union as a “special interest group” at least in terms similar to the tobacco lobby being a special interest group. Shouldn’t all Americans take a particular interest in the quality our children’s educations and the livelihood of those who care for our next generation. Our children are our future, they will care for of us when we get older, they will run the government when we retire and on a personal level, they are our hopes and our dreams, they are our greatest investments. So I ask, why not loosen the purse strings and pay a reasonable wage to those with whom we entrust our kids?
I have heard some conservatives respond that, really, we want teachers who love teaching so much that they would teach even if they weren’t getting paid at all. That argument sounds good on the surface…I mean, really, I want my kids to be taught by someone who is passionate about and loves teaching, but seriously, no one should need to love teaching so much that they are willing to live in poverty or near poverty and neglect their own children’s financial needs in order to work in the school system.
Think about it, what if we decided that we really only want CEO’s who love that line of work so much that they would do it for free. What about lawyers or cosmetic surgeons or accountants, shouldn’t we find people who will do those tasks for free too?
Seriously though, let’s look at qualifications and pay; a teacher must earn a four year degree and then a teaching credential. Additionally, they have annual education requirements, which they are expected to pay from their own income. By necessity, teachers are well educated with five or six years in college before they qualify to lead a classroom. Why is their work so un-valued in our society that after completing all of that higher education, a teacher starts out earning only $32,000 per year?
I can’t understand why, an entry level computer technician, with no college degree, is able to earn more money than a teacher with five or six years of college. I worry that our values are mixed up, that our vision is blurry and that we have lost sight of some key American values.
In the 2008 Presidential race, there was much talk about sexism. It was used in the Democratic primaries and again in the general election. I’m not sure whether sexism played a greater role than did racism in the 2008 election year, however, I can promise you that every day across this country sexism plays a role in the lives of everyday Americans.
Consider the fact that in general, a single mother is considered to be a tragedy, or in Rush Limbaugh’s world, a slacker. However, a single father is something of a hero. We have a double standard for what kind of role women are expected to take with their children versus what is expected of men.
Women are expected to be nurturing, loving and in general caring providers for their children; they cook, clean and take care of the soccer schedule. They are expected to put their careers on hold and stay home for the important work of parenting. By contrast, men go to work and are expected to earn enough money to support the family. Men are expected to work late, attend meetings or even get a second job if necessary. If a child has to stay home sick, a mother is almost always the one to take sick leave or miss a work day. In my family, when we run out of sick days, it is usually my wife who stays home because her work for the schools pays so much less than my work.
Often, I wonder if this isn’t because of the nature of my wife’s work. Because she takes care of children for a living and I take care of more pressing issues, like some one’s Microsoft Word Program won’t start or they really want flash installed on their computer. I believe that our society has relegated work, which is historically considered “women’s work” to a lower pay scale. Jobs like Daycare Provider, school teachers, Teacher’s Aids, house cleaners. None of them pays particularly well, all of them are considered by and large to be women’s jobs.
It seems that in our society, we pretend to value our children above all else, but in reality, we won’t pay a good wage to those people who we entrust with our children’s safety and future, as a country, we spend more money building prisons than we do building schools. Somewhere deep inside our collective unconscious, we still seem to believe that those tasks are a woman’s tasks…a stay at home mother’s tasks…unpaid and economically un-valuable tasks. The question is when will we realize that in fact, providing care and education for the next generation is invaluable work worthy of good pay and worthy of our deepest respect.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Pay Less now or More Later - It's up to you America
--by Mike Adams
Washington Republicans claim that Obama’s economic plan will raise everyone’s taxes while their Republican plan will, as they always claim, slash spending and lower taxes. George W. Bush promised the same thing, George H.W. Bush said “read my lips, no new taxes.” It seems that Republicans either don’t know how to fulfill on their campaign promises or they don’t care to. After eight years of Republican leadership, we have a record deficit and the only thing offered is a continued and expanded war along with more Republican tax breaks which will continue to benefit only the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country. I’m sure that Republicans will continue to push for more ‘deregulation,’ which could more aptly be portrayed as a ‘Corporate blank check’ our jobs will continue to move over seas our resources will continue to enrich America’s Elite and average hard working American citizens will continue to lose.
Today, we are individually and collectively worse off than we were when the Republicans took the White House nearly eight years ago. This is a critical time in our history and we American citizens can not afford to make the wrong choice again, we can not afford to let Republicans control the direction of this country any longer, we can not afford to make a presidential decision based on misleading sound bites and partial truths again.
We have heard Republicans claim that Obama can not possibly pay for everything that he is promoting by taxing the wealthiest Americans. They say that it would be great to have a world class education system but it costs money, they say that it would be great to provide everyone with health care but it costs money, they say that we Americans simply can’t afford to take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. What they don’t tell you is that we the American tax payer will ultimately pay that bill anyway. We will pay now or we will pay later. We will pay less or we will pay more…luckily, we get to chose.
In the last two decades, this country has seen an explosion in prison populations. We all know that prisons are not free and we the American taxpayers spend approximately $22,000 per year on each and every person who ends up behind bars, collectively that represents a cost of more than 40 billion dollars each year. This burden is not only economic because of the upfront monetary cost, but also social because prisoners are not productive tax payers, they are not able to be involved parents, they end up being little more than a burden. In fact, according to a 2000 USA Today article, prison costs were the single largest expense of many states. There is something wrong when the United States of America spends more money to build prisons than to build shools and colleges. Our system is failing our investments are mis-guided our direction is wrong.
The importance of this is stark when we consider that nothing will do more to keep people out of prison than education. The vast majority of American inmates are functionally illiterate and many of those who can read have only an eighth grade education. What is wrong here? Why do we have money to build and staff prisons, but not to build and staff schools, why can’t a teacher or instructional assistant receive decent pay?
Our choices are simple, either we pay for our citizens to have a world class education system now or we pay more for a world class prison system later. Which is the moral choice? Which choice will give us a larger tax base? Which is the choice consistent with American values, which is the choice consistent with family values?
Next, Republicans want to claim leadership in solving our energy problems. I want to know why, if Republicans wanted lead in solving our energy problems, they didn’t pass laws for increasing the national fuel efficiency standards in the 1990’s or again at the beginning of Bush’s term? The argument at the time had to do with the negative impact on our economy. Well, here we are...we could have paid less to avoid this crisis but instead, Republicans decided to avoid being responsible and have us pay more…much more now.
Washington Republicans it seems are always willing to mortgage a later generation, so that they don’t have to pay today's bills, they never want to invest in America’s future. It was under Republican leadership that we recklessly started a war under false pretenses. The current Republican nominee for President supported that war and all of the spending that goes along with it, yet no one except the men and women who serve in our armed forces along with their friends and families have been asked to sacrifice or change anything. I guess the Republican plan is to leave that bill for a later generation so that these Republicans won’t have to worry about it.
It was nearly eight years ago when Republicans took leadership of this United States of America. When Republicans took over, our economy was strong, the budget had been balanced, in fact we had a budget surplus and optimism was high. Since then, Republicans have given us the largest US deficit in history, record home foreclosures, rising unemployment, soaring healthcare costs and our children will be left to pay this bill, those of us in our twenties, thirties and forties will be left to deal with the consequences of this reckless Republican adventure.
Any Americans with children who will be going to college within the next fifteen years will be left to pay shoulder the burden of higher education and failed Republican policies. We will be left to cope with the health needs of returning war Veterans, we will be left with the moral hangover associated with the fact that the current Republican leaders won't provide appropriate or adequate care for veterans, we will be left to repay China for the debt that this Republican leadership left, we will be left to pay for an increase in prison costs as the next generation of impoverished Americans grows into adulthood without having learned to read without having acquired the college degrees that they needed from our neglected education system. We will be the ones to pay and we need to make the right choice now. Please remember this when you cast your votes in November, please make the right choice for America’s future, please lets do the right thing this time.
Washington Republicans claim that Obama’s economic plan will raise everyone’s taxes while their Republican plan will, as they always claim, slash spending and lower taxes. George W. Bush promised the same thing, George H.W. Bush said “read my lips, no new taxes.” It seems that Republicans either don’t know how to fulfill on their campaign promises or they don’t care to. After eight years of Republican leadership, we have a record deficit and the only thing offered is a continued and expanded war along with more Republican tax breaks which will continue to benefit only the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country. I’m sure that Republicans will continue to push for more ‘deregulation,’ which could more aptly be portrayed as a ‘Corporate blank check’ our jobs will continue to move over seas our resources will continue to enrich America’s Elite and average hard working American citizens will continue to lose.
Today, we are individually and collectively worse off than we were when the Republicans took the White House nearly eight years ago. This is a critical time in our history and we American citizens can not afford to make the wrong choice again, we can not afford to let Republicans control the direction of this country any longer, we can not afford to make a presidential decision based on misleading sound bites and partial truths again.
We have heard Republicans claim that Obama can not possibly pay for everything that he is promoting by taxing the wealthiest Americans. They say that it would be great to have a world class education system but it costs money, they say that it would be great to provide everyone with health care but it costs money, they say that we Americans simply can’t afford to take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. What they don’t tell you is that we the American tax payer will ultimately pay that bill anyway. We will pay now or we will pay later. We will pay less or we will pay more…luckily, we get to chose.
In the last two decades, this country has seen an explosion in prison populations. We all know that prisons are not free and we the American taxpayers spend approximately $22,000 per year on each and every person who ends up behind bars, collectively that represents a cost of more than 40 billion dollars each year. This burden is not only economic because of the upfront monetary cost, but also social because prisoners are not productive tax payers, they are not able to be involved parents, they end up being little more than a burden. In fact, according to a 2000 USA Today article, prison costs were the single largest expense of many states. There is something wrong when the United States of America spends more money to build prisons than to build shools and colleges. Our system is failing our investments are mis-guided our direction is wrong.
The importance of this is stark when we consider that nothing will do more to keep people out of prison than education. The vast majority of American inmates are functionally illiterate and many of those who can read have only an eighth grade education. What is wrong here? Why do we have money to build and staff prisons, but not to build and staff schools, why can’t a teacher or instructional assistant receive decent pay?
Our choices are simple, either we pay for our citizens to have a world class education system now or we pay more for a world class prison system later. Which is the moral choice? Which choice will give us a larger tax base? Which is the choice consistent with American values, which is the choice consistent with family values?
Next, Republicans want to claim leadership in solving our energy problems. I want to know why, if Republicans wanted lead in solving our energy problems, they didn’t pass laws for increasing the national fuel efficiency standards in the 1990’s or again at the beginning of Bush’s term? The argument at the time had to do with the negative impact on our economy. Well, here we are...we could have paid less to avoid this crisis but instead, Republicans decided to avoid being responsible and have us pay more…much more now.
Washington Republicans it seems are always willing to mortgage a later generation, so that they don’t have to pay today's bills, they never want to invest in America’s future. It was under Republican leadership that we recklessly started a war under false pretenses. The current Republican nominee for President supported that war and all of the spending that goes along with it, yet no one except the men and women who serve in our armed forces along with their friends and families have been asked to sacrifice or change anything. I guess the Republican plan is to leave that bill for a later generation so that these Republicans won’t have to worry about it.
It was nearly eight years ago when Republicans took leadership of this United States of America. When Republicans took over, our economy was strong, the budget had been balanced, in fact we had a budget surplus and optimism was high. Since then, Republicans have given us the largest US deficit in history, record home foreclosures, rising unemployment, soaring healthcare costs and our children will be left to pay this bill, those of us in our twenties, thirties and forties will be left to deal with the consequences of this reckless Republican adventure.
Any Americans with children who will be going to college within the next fifteen years will be left to pay shoulder the burden of higher education and failed Republican policies. We will be left to cope with the health needs of returning war Veterans, we will be left with the moral hangover associated with the fact that the current Republican leaders won't provide appropriate or adequate care for veterans, we will be left to repay China for the debt that this Republican leadership left, we will be left to pay for an increase in prison costs as the next generation of impoverished Americans grows into adulthood without having learned to read without having acquired the college degrees that they needed from our neglected education system. We will be the ones to pay and we need to make the right choice now. Please remember this when you cast your votes in November, please make the right choice for America’s future, please lets do the right thing this time.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Prejudice, Diversity, History
--by Mike Adams
For years, I worked construction as a carpenter and later as a foreman. Two years ago in spring, I began searching for a new project or for regular employment. I responded to newspaper ads, sent resumes, made phone calls and kept appointments. One day, a builder wanting an interview phoned me and after some conversation, he said I sounded like a good candidate. He said that he had several Mexicans who, he explained are good, honest workers; however, because of cultural inferiority, they will never be foreman material. He knew from talking with me that I had that certain ‘Anglo’ something, which would make me a good construction lead.
I am not making this up either!
You may have noticed that I’m not Anglo! He couldn’t tell on the phone, so I set an appointment, with no intention of getting the job. I did look forward to his reaction when Michael Adams the guy with that special ‘Anglo’ sense walked through the door with dark skin. I don’t think he even noticed I wasn’t white. He offered me a job, which I didn’t take, because I didn’t trust him.
But I was shocked…didn’t he know that we’re in a new millennium? I mean thank goodness I don’t encounter that often. I am a longtime UU and we gladly welcome people regardless of race or national origin. We welcome gay people, Hispanic people, African American people, young people, old people. I myself am half Native American. We have members who identify as being Jewish, Pagan, Christian, Buddhist, etc… We welcome diversity!
In fact, after last year’s inspiring General Assembly, I looked into starting a Spanish speaking UU service. I wrote to a well known UU minister, who I thought had already tried and the minister responded telling me that there had been no Spanish speaking effort, that the college educated people in that minister’s area already spoke English, and because the local Spanish speaking population were poorly educated Mexican Catholics, there was no need. OUCH! I couldn’t believe what I was reading. And it was coming from a well known and widely respected UU minister.
Another influential UU whom I personally know wrote to me, “This country consists of several cultures besides our own. (what would you call ours – European?)…I don’t agree that a Spanish speaking minister or church would make us more liberal. It sounds to me more like trying to force our image on other cultures.”
Sometimes I wonder who people are talking to when they communicate with me. I mean look at me, I am not Anglo. I’m not European. I’m Native American, I speak some Spanish, until recently, I worked construction, I don’t have a college degree. I don’t have a good salary. In fact, during our church’s recent pledge drive, I struggled internally with having to lower our pledge substantially. I am working evenings and Saturday mornings. Occasionally, I worry about paying our basic expenses.
When I delivered my pledge card, I felt embarrassed and upset. People are raising their pledges by 30% and I wanted to do the same. Sometimes, it is not comfortable coming here because we are able to make only a symbolic financial contribution. I know that any contribution honestly given is at least theoretically valuable.
My concern, how do we impact those who struggle to make ends meet. Would my friends feel inferior if I brought them to a UU service?
Please! Don’t assure me after today's service that I am welcome and valued…I do know that already. Instead, let’s consider how our assumptions about what credentials and financial resources a UU has might actually turn some people away.
I am not suggesting that we abandon our pledge drive or that we stop asking for members to raise their pledges…just consider how we could ensure that all who visit feel welcome.
Consider…would we really welcome anyone…Regardless of their appearance, regardless of their intelligence or lack thereof, regardless of their low income or blue collar background or basic vocabulary. Would we welcome people who “aint” educated? Would we view and treat them as equals?
Are we here to serve all, including the working class in our community; is our message really available to everyone? Or is ours a message meant for the intellectuals, the college graduates, the upper crust of American Society?
In short…have we surrendered the working class to conservative religion?
If so, how can we hope to impact our world? How can we meaningfully promote our seven principles at large in that seething mass of humanity, who make up our planet’s daily activities?
On March 18th, in Pennsylvania, Barrack Obama responded to attacks on his African American church minister, a civil rights veteran from the sixties. Obama said, “For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”
So here we sit on Sunday morning, look around you, look at the people, at their skin color, their age, consider their profession.
…are we diverse?
...are we prejudiced?
...are we turning people away by assuming that UU ’s have college educations and expendable financial resources?
Remember, I have worked in the construction field. I have shared an apartment with fifteen people from Guatemala. I promise you that blue collar workers, and laborers and immigrants care as much about freedom, about the environment, about social justice and about racism as do UU’s. America’s working class loves their children as much as America’s professional class. America’s laborers share the same sorts of dreams and aspirations as do America’s educated people.
While race is an important topic in our country, I do believe that most in this room are on the same page. We could and should look at questions of race in our denomination and in this congregation. But our real struggle in Unitarian Universalism is with classism. If we want to have an impact on race relations…if we want to have a true diversity of membership, we must confront our unseen prejudices and make our faith available to all who might share our concerns and values.
There are very few people I have ever met on a construction site, whom I would invite to a UU service. Not because they would disagree with what we have to say, not because they would be insulted by our message or values, but instead, because I believe they would leave feeling judged as stupid or unimportant or less than.
If we truly want to be a vital, open and diverse religious group, our challenge is not to be more welcoming to people of color, but instead we must welcome people whose earnings barely pay their bills. We must welcome people who lack any college. We must welcome people whose vocabulary is simpler than what many of us may be used to. We must open our doors…and our hearts…and our minds to people who work at the drive thru…or the laundr-o-mat…or the convenience store.
We have a choice to make. And it is my hope we will embrace the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.” It is my hope that WE will take up this challenge.
But REMEMBER…we won’t do this alone, we can do this together and it is definitely something we can do. We are the right people for this task. So, let us accept that challenge…Let us raise the moral bar for our denomination. Let us raise the moral bar for our society and for our country. Let us ensure that the next generation of UU’s will look at our legacy with pride. We have a long and proud history of this kind of work
In February 1841, John Quincy Adams, fifth President of the United States, Harvard Professor, Congressional Representative and a founding member of the Washington DC’s All Souls Unitarian Church stood before the US Supreme court and attacked the President of the United States. He challenged the members of the court to try and live up to the legacy of those who had gone a generation before. This was Adams’ last case. He was defending thirty-six people who had been kidnapped from Africa and shipped across the ocean on the slave ship Amistad. They had revolted, taking control of the ship and killing many of their captors. They were charged with murder. Adams prevailed and the Amistad victims were returned to their home.
124 years later, in March 1965, the war against racial oppression was still raging and in Selma, Alabama, 39 year old Viola Liuzzo, mother of five, a Unitarian Universalist and a civil rights activist had been driving people to and from the march at Alabama’s Capitol. Liuzzo was intercepted by four members of the KKK, who chased, shot and murdered her. Liuzzo left a grieving family but her husband said, “My wife died for a sacred battle, the rights of humanity. She had one concern and only one in mind. She took a quote from Abraham Lincoln that all men are created equal and that's the way she believed.”
In every generation, every UU who has struggled to promote justice, has had to face their own personal prejudices and shortcomings. The beauty is that despite their pitfalls, despite their frailty, despite their humanity with all of it’s fear, with all of it’s fury, despite all of that, they did great things. So now it is up to us. We can either rise to the occasion and lay claim to our proud UU heritage or we can sit down at the back of the bus and pass the torch to another movement? Either is a valid choice, but only one is consistent with our seven principles.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”
Thank you, Amen, Blessed Be
For years, I worked construction as a carpenter and later as a foreman. Two years ago in spring, I began searching for a new project or for regular employment. I responded to newspaper ads, sent resumes, made phone calls and kept appointments. One day, a builder wanting an interview phoned me and after some conversation, he said I sounded like a good candidate. He said that he had several Mexicans who, he explained are good, honest workers; however, because of cultural inferiority, they will never be foreman material. He knew from talking with me that I had that certain ‘Anglo’ something, which would make me a good construction lead.
I am not making this up either!
You may have noticed that I’m not Anglo! He couldn’t tell on the phone, so I set an appointment, with no intention of getting the job. I did look forward to his reaction when Michael Adams the guy with that special ‘Anglo’ sense walked through the door with dark skin. I don’t think he even noticed I wasn’t white. He offered me a job, which I didn’t take, because I didn’t trust him.
But I was shocked…didn’t he know that we’re in a new millennium? I mean thank goodness I don’t encounter that often. I am a longtime UU and we gladly welcome people regardless of race or national origin. We welcome gay people, Hispanic people, African American people, young people, old people. I myself am half Native American. We have members who identify as being Jewish, Pagan, Christian, Buddhist, etc… We welcome diversity!
In fact, after last year’s inspiring General Assembly, I looked into starting a Spanish speaking UU service. I wrote to a well known UU minister, who I thought had already tried and the minister responded telling me that there had been no Spanish speaking effort, that the college educated people in that minister’s area already spoke English, and because the local Spanish speaking population were poorly educated Mexican Catholics, there was no need. OUCH! I couldn’t believe what I was reading. And it was coming from a well known and widely respected UU minister.
Another influential UU whom I personally know wrote to me, “This country consists of several cultures besides our own. (what would you call ours – European?)…I don’t agree that a Spanish speaking minister or church would make us more liberal. It sounds to me more like trying to force our image on other cultures.”
Sometimes I wonder who people are talking to when they communicate with me. I mean look at me, I am not Anglo. I’m not European. I’m Native American, I speak some Spanish, until recently, I worked construction, I don’t have a college degree. I don’t have a good salary. In fact, during our church’s recent pledge drive, I struggled internally with having to lower our pledge substantially. I am working evenings and Saturday mornings. Occasionally, I worry about paying our basic expenses.
When I delivered my pledge card, I felt embarrassed and upset. People are raising their pledges by 30% and I wanted to do the same. Sometimes, it is not comfortable coming here because we are able to make only a symbolic financial contribution. I know that any contribution honestly given is at least theoretically valuable.
My concern, how do we impact those who struggle to make ends meet. Would my friends feel inferior if I brought them to a UU service?
Please! Don’t assure me after today's service that I am welcome and valued…I do know that already. Instead, let’s consider how our assumptions about what credentials and financial resources a UU has might actually turn some people away.
I am not suggesting that we abandon our pledge drive or that we stop asking for members to raise their pledges…just consider how we could ensure that all who visit feel welcome.
Consider…would we really welcome anyone…Regardless of their appearance, regardless of their intelligence or lack thereof, regardless of their low income or blue collar background or basic vocabulary. Would we welcome people who “aint” educated? Would we view and treat them as equals?
Are we here to serve all, including the working class in our community; is our message really available to everyone? Or is ours a message meant for the intellectuals, the college graduates, the upper crust of American Society?
In short…have we surrendered the working class to conservative religion?
If so, how can we hope to impact our world? How can we meaningfully promote our seven principles at large in that seething mass of humanity, who make up our planet’s daily activities?
On March 18th, in Pennsylvania, Barrack Obama responded to attacks on his African American church minister, a civil rights veteran from the sixties. Obama said, “For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”
So here we sit on Sunday morning, look around you, look at the people, at their skin color, their age, consider their profession.
…are we diverse?
...are we prejudiced?
...are we turning people away by assuming that UU ’s have college educations and expendable financial resources?
Remember, I have worked in the construction field. I have shared an apartment with fifteen people from Guatemala. I promise you that blue collar workers, and laborers and immigrants care as much about freedom, about the environment, about social justice and about racism as do UU’s. America’s working class loves their children as much as America’s professional class. America’s laborers share the same sorts of dreams and aspirations as do America’s educated people.
While race is an important topic in our country, I do believe that most in this room are on the same page. We could and should look at questions of race in our denomination and in this congregation. But our real struggle in Unitarian Universalism is with classism. If we want to have an impact on race relations…if we want to have a true diversity of membership, we must confront our unseen prejudices and make our faith available to all who might share our concerns and values.
There are very few people I have ever met on a construction site, whom I would invite to a UU service. Not because they would disagree with what we have to say, not because they would be insulted by our message or values, but instead, because I believe they would leave feeling judged as stupid or unimportant or less than.
If we truly want to be a vital, open and diverse religious group, our challenge is not to be more welcoming to people of color, but instead we must welcome people whose earnings barely pay their bills. We must welcome people who lack any college. We must welcome people whose vocabulary is simpler than what many of us may be used to. We must open our doors…and our hearts…and our minds to people who work at the drive thru…or the laundr-o-mat…or the convenience store.
We have a choice to make. And it is my hope we will embrace the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.” It is my hope that WE will take up this challenge.
But REMEMBER…we won’t do this alone, we can do this together and it is definitely something we can do. We are the right people for this task. So, let us accept that challenge…Let us raise the moral bar for our denomination. Let us raise the moral bar for our society and for our country. Let us ensure that the next generation of UU’s will look at our legacy with pride. We have a long and proud history of this kind of work
In February 1841, John Quincy Adams, fifth President of the United States, Harvard Professor, Congressional Representative and a founding member of the Washington DC’s All Souls Unitarian Church stood before the US Supreme court and attacked the President of the United States. He challenged the members of the court to try and live up to the legacy of those who had gone a generation before. This was Adams’ last case. He was defending thirty-six people who had been kidnapped from Africa and shipped across the ocean on the slave ship Amistad. They had revolted, taking control of the ship and killing many of their captors. They were charged with murder. Adams prevailed and the Amistad victims were returned to their home.
124 years later, in March 1965, the war against racial oppression was still raging and in Selma, Alabama, 39 year old Viola Liuzzo, mother of five, a Unitarian Universalist and a civil rights activist had been driving people to and from the march at Alabama’s Capitol. Liuzzo was intercepted by four members of the KKK, who chased, shot and murdered her. Liuzzo left a grieving family but her husband said, “My wife died for a sacred battle, the rights of humanity. She had one concern and only one in mind. She took a quote from Abraham Lincoln that all men are created equal and that's the way she believed.”
In every generation, every UU who has struggled to promote justice, has had to face their own personal prejudices and shortcomings. The beauty is that despite their pitfalls, despite their frailty, despite their humanity with all of it’s fear, with all of it’s fury, despite all of that, they did great things. So now it is up to us. We can either rise to the occasion and lay claim to our proud UU heritage or we can sit down at the back of the bus and pass the torch to another movement? Either is a valid choice, but only one is consistent with our seven principles.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”
Thank you, Amen, Blessed Be
Monday, February 11, 2008
Why I Support Barack Obama
--by Mike Adams
My family is tight on money with three children a mortgage and a monthly budget, which leaves us with almost no wiggle room. We are very hesitant to part with our money.
After discussing the current political situation with my wife, we decided to devote $25, which is a significant portion of our slender resources to support Barak Obama’s bid for the presidency.
Neither of us has anything in particular against Hillary Clinton, we both agree that she would probably be a fine President, however, we both also agree that this country stands at a turning point in history. Ours is an era, which has been dominated by partisan bickering, divisive manipulations and less than honest statements. Our country has been torn into seemingly irreconcilable factions.
Our Country has waged a war of aggression and sacrificed thousands of American Service men and women. We have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We have let the poorest and most vulnerable in our society suffer and we have enriched the wealthiest at the expense of our Federal Budget. We have seen our Government turn its back on our wounded and injured service men and women returning home from war. Over the past several years, many of us have lost hope, we have given up on our democracy, on our Government and on our society.
To those who barely have the courage to raise your heads and hope for a brighter future, I say to you that this is our moment; this is our chance if we will seize it. Barak Obama is not promising to change this country, and we ought not to expect him to accomplish that.
What the Obama’s promise is to give voice to our passions, to serve our will, to believe in us even if we have stopped believing in ourselves. We are being called to rise up in unity and change our world, to change the course of our country and to make this planet a better place for everyone. The choice is ours. The future will be decided by our choices.
My vote goes to Barak Obama. I will share of my meager monetary resources and I will work for his election. I pledge to fan the flame of hope burning in my heart and to relight the fires of faith in my fellow citizens wherever possible. I pledge to create a better world for my three children, for my community, for everyone. I pledge to leave pessimism behind and work for a better future. In short, I pledge to make a difference!
My family is tight on money with three children a mortgage and a monthly budget, which leaves us with almost no wiggle room. We are very hesitant to part with our money.
After discussing the current political situation with my wife, we decided to devote $25, which is a significant portion of our slender resources to support Barak Obama’s bid for the presidency.
Neither of us has anything in particular against Hillary Clinton, we both agree that she would probably be a fine President, however, we both also agree that this country stands at a turning point in history. Ours is an era, which has been dominated by partisan bickering, divisive manipulations and less than honest statements. Our country has been torn into seemingly irreconcilable factions.
Our Country has waged a war of aggression and sacrificed thousands of American Service men and women. We have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We have let the poorest and most vulnerable in our society suffer and we have enriched the wealthiest at the expense of our Federal Budget. We have seen our Government turn its back on our wounded and injured service men and women returning home from war. Over the past several years, many of us have lost hope, we have given up on our democracy, on our Government and on our society.
To those who barely have the courage to raise your heads and hope for a brighter future, I say to you that this is our moment; this is our chance if we will seize it. Barak Obama is not promising to change this country, and we ought not to expect him to accomplish that.
What the Obama’s promise is to give voice to our passions, to serve our will, to believe in us even if we have stopped believing in ourselves. We are being called to rise up in unity and change our world, to change the course of our country and to make this planet a better place for everyone. The choice is ours. The future will be decided by our choices.
My vote goes to Barak Obama. I will share of my meager monetary resources and I will work for his election. I pledge to fan the flame of hope burning in my heart and to relight the fires of faith in my fellow citizens wherever possible. I pledge to create a better world for my three children, for my community, for everyone. I pledge to leave pessimism behind and work for a better future. In short, I pledge to make a difference!
Monday, January 21, 2008
Economic Stimulous or more money sitting in a bank?
--by Mike Adams
As Republicans and Democrats face off in Washington, our economy continues its downward spiral. Unemployment is on the rise, foreclosures are increasing and people are holding on to what they have for fear of near term scarcity.
The Washington debate centers on how best to spend our tax money in an effort to stimulate the economy. Both sides agree a tax rebate or some kind of monetary distribution from the Government would be beneficial. They simply can’t agree on who should receive that financial relief. Republicans argue that only people who have paid taxes should receive anything and that they can only receive as much as they’ve paid. On the surface this makes a kind of sense. It seems fair and equitable. The problem I have with that argument is not that it is a theoretically fair idea. Rather that it is short sited and essentially self serving (for Republicans).
Democrats argue that rebates and aid should be sent to low income individuals regardless of how much they have paid in taxes. To those sympathetic to the argument summarized above, this may seem like a modern day Federal Robin Hood. But actually, it makes good financial sense. When someone has had all of their needs met and they come into money during tough financial times, if they are prudent, they will save that money. By contrast, if we put money into the hands of those who are barely surviving, they will spend it quickly.
Therein lays the crux of the issue. We taxpayers are being told that our taxes will be used to stimulate the economy. For maximum stimulation, every cent contained in that stimulus package should go into circulation, rather than get hoarded. Obviously, the smart investment for stimulating our economy will be to place money in hands which will spend quickly.
My money definitely goes to the Dems on this one. I honestly think that Republican backers have already cashed in plenty on tax cuts for the super wealthy, special no bid contracts and other pork barrel options. It’s time this Nation do something to help its populace rather than its corporations.
One question I have about the Republican’s proposed package is whether several big corporate Republican supporters will receive a rebate despite their tax free status. The Republicans never seem to miss out on distributing wealth to their own backers whether they are US Corporations, off Shore Corporations or even untaxed entities. What is the plan here?
As Republicans and Democrats face off in Washington, our economy continues its downward spiral. Unemployment is on the rise, foreclosures are increasing and people are holding on to what they have for fear of near term scarcity.
The Washington debate centers on how best to spend our tax money in an effort to stimulate the economy. Both sides agree a tax rebate or some kind of monetary distribution from the Government would be beneficial. They simply can’t agree on who should receive that financial relief. Republicans argue that only people who have paid taxes should receive anything and that they can only receive as much as they’ve paid. On the surface this makes a kind of sense. It seems fair and equitable. The problem I have with that argument is not that it is a theoretically fair idea. Rather that it is short sited and essentially self serving (for Republicans).
Democrats argue that rebates and aid should be sent to low income individuals regardless of how much they have paid in taxes. To those sympathetic to the argument summarized above, this may seem like a modern day Federal Robin Hood. But actually, it makes good financial sense. When someone has had all of their needs met and they come into money during tough financial times, if they are prudent, they will save that money. By contrast, if we put money into the hands of those who are barely surviving, they will spend it quickly.
Therein lays the crux of the issue. We taxpayers are being told that our taxes will be used to stimulate the economy. For maximum stimulation, every cent contained in that stimulus package should go into circulation, rather than get hoarded. Obviously, the smart investment for stimulating our economy will be to place money in hands which will spend quickly.
My money definitely goes to the Dems on this one. I honestly think that Republican backers have already cashed in plenty on tax cuts for the super wealthy, special no bid contracts and other pork barrel options. It’s time this Nation do something to help its populace rather than its corporations.
One question I have about the Republican’s proposed package is whether several big corporate Republican supporters will receive a rebate despite their tax free status. The Republicans never seem to miss out on distributing wealth to their own backers whether they are US Corporations, off Shore Corporations or even untaxed entities. What is the plan here?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
US Consumers in a Pickle - Our Needs or Our Feeds?
--by Mike Adams
NY Times Dec. 29th Editorial, “Cash-Strapped Consumers” hits the nail on the head or at least mostly. American’s, including myself have been pulling out the credit card too often over the past several years.
While Mr. Bush has been bragging about this country’s economic growth and expansion, the vast majority of American consumers have not benefited. After considering the inflated costs of living, we have come out behind. We actually have less buying power than we did when Bill Clinton left office.
I know that people were worried about terrorists and about the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq. I know that we have to support our troops. The problem is that we have failed to decipher the needs from the feeds. “Feeds?” you ask, by feeds, I refer to the fatty and sugary diet of feel good misinformation, which we have been fed by our Health care industry, which insists that America has the best health care available and that Americans receive the best care possible and that it is all powered by the free market. In reality, America has a higher infant mortality rate that many other industrialized countries and we are the only western country which doesn’t guarantee health care for all of its citizens. Additionally according to a Harvard University study, fifty percent of all bankruptcies in the United States are the result of medical bills, more surprising is the fact that of those medical bankruptcies, seventy five percent had a good job which provided health insurance. For years, Wal-Mart has been fighting high prices, they tell us to “Save Money.Live Better”, which doesn’t mean that we should put money in the bank and save it, but instead we should spend at Wal-Mart, where we can purchase cheaply made products which presumably improve our lives. Unfortunately, while owning a house full of cheap belongings may seem attractive, the mountain of debt, which middle class Americans are accruing is not life enhancing. More importantly, although Wal-Mart can legally claim to create new jobs each year, the part it leaves out is that in creating those low paid Wal-Mart jobs, they destroyed higher paid jobs available through local small businesses. The Bush Administration told us that if we don’t go to the mall and spend money, the terrorists would win. In contrast, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants suggests that every American should save money and not run up Credit balances.
The following analogy may seem too simple, but think about it…when I see a doctor and he/she says that I need to lose at least seventy pounds; my hope is that I will be able to lose that weight without having to make any real effort. I hope that I can still eat steak and potatoes until I’m full. I hope that I won’t have to do much in the way of exercise. I want the benefits of living a healthy life, without the work. If a doctor or perhaps the President of the United States told me that the terrorists would win if I stopped eating myself silly and that the terrorists would win if I started jogging each day, I would want to believe that doctor or President. I would want to continue with an unhealthy life hoping against hope that one bright day, I would wake up and look like Brad Pitt. Unfortunately, at some point, I would find myself in the hospital fifty pounds heavier having suffered a heart attack.
We middle class Americans are in this situation now with regard to our finances, with regard to our Government and with regard to our health care. We are in dire straights and we have to make some short term sacrifices for the long term good. We have to stop spending money frivolously; we have to pay attention to what political candidates say they will do. More importantly, we must pay attention to what our government is actually doing. It is necessary that we engage in the hard work of taking care of ourselves and of each other. When our leaders claim that one party wants to raise taxes, we really need to find out if the proposed tax increase will negatively affect hard working Americans or if it will mean that the wealthiest Americans simply have to start paying their share too. We need to ask ourselves if socialized medicine and universal health care coverage could possibly be any worse than having inadequate or no health coverage. (in 2004 the US Census reported that there were 45 million American without Insurance.)
Sometimes, I want to be angry with the American People, sometimes I want to be angry with our Government. Often I’m angry with our corporations and sometimes I’m angry with myself for not doing more. Wherever I or anyone pins their anger, makes little difference, we still need to wake up and take charge of our collective destiny. The question is when will we wake up and what we are going to do. I don’t have any suggestions or answers for those questions, but I hope that when we collectively move in that direction we ask ourselves, “What kind of world will we leave our children and our grand children? Are we willing to stop eating crap and start taking care of ourselves?”
NY Times Dec. 29th Editorial, “Cash-Strapped Consumers” hits the nail on the head or at least mostly. American’s, including myself have been pulling out the credit card too often over the past several years.
While Mr. Bush has been bragging about this country’s economic growth and expansion, the vast majority of American consumers have not benefited. After considering the inflated costs of living, we have come out behind. We actually have less buying power than we did when Bill Clinton left office.
I know that people were worried about terrorists and about the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq. I know that we have to support our troops. The problem is that we have failed to decipher the needs from the feeds. “Feeds?” you ask, by feeds, I refer to the fatty and sugary diet of feel good misinformation, which we have been fed by our Health care industry, which insists that America has the best health care available and that Americans receive the best care possible and that it is all powered by the free market. In reality, America has a higher infant mortality rate that many other industrialized countries and we are the only western country which doesn’t guarantee health care for all of its citizens. Additionally according to a Harvard University study, fifty percent of all bankruptcies in the United States are the result of medical bills, more surprising is the fact that of those medical bankruptcies, seventy five percent had a good job which provided health insurance. For years, Wal-Mart has been fighting high prices, they tell us to “Save Money.Live Better”, which doesn’t mean that we should put money in the bank and save it, but instead we should spend at Wal-Mart, where we can purchase cheaply made products which presumably improve our lives. Unfortunately, while owning a house full of cheap belongings may seem attractive, the mountain of debt, which middle class Americans are accruing is not life enhancing. More importantly, although Wal-Mart can legally claim to create new jobs each year, the part it leaves out is that in creating those low paid Wal-Mart jobs, they destroyed higher paid jobs available through local small businesses. The Bush Administration told us that if we don’t go to the mall and spend money, the terrorists would win. In contrast, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants suggests that every American should save money and not run up Credit balances.
The following analogy may seem too simple, but think about it…when I see a doctor and he/she says that I need to lose at least seventy pounds; my hope is that I will be able to lose that weight without having to make any real effort. I hope that I can still eat steak and potatoes until I’m full. I hope that I won’t have to do much in the way of exercise. I want the benefits of living a healthy life, without the work. If a doctor or perhaps the President of the United States told me that the terrorists would win if I stopped eating myself silly and that the terrorists would win if I started jogging each day, I would want to believe that doctor or President. I would want to continue with an unhealthy life hoping against hope that one bright day, I would wake up and look like Brad Pitt. Unfortunately, at some point, I would find myself in the hospital fifty pounds heavier having suffered a heart attack.
We middle class Americans are in this situation now with regard to our finances, with regard to our Government and with regard to our health care. We are in dire straights and we have to make some short term sacrifices for the long term good. We have to stop spending money frivolously; we have to pay attention to what political candidates say they will do. More importantly, we must pay attention to what our government is actually doing. It is necessary that we engage in the hard work of taking care of ourselves and of each other. When our leaders claim that one party wants to raise taxes, we really need to find out if the proposed tax increase will negatively affect hard working Americans or if it will mean that the wealthiest Americans simply have to start paying their share too. We need to ask ourselves if socialized medicine and universal health care coverage could possibly be any worse than having inadequate or no health coverage. (in 2004 the US Census reported that there were 45 million American without Insurance.)
Sometimes, I want to be angry with the American People, sometimes I want to be angry with our Government. Often I’m angry with our corporations and sometimes I’m angry with myself for not doing more. Wherever I or anyone pins their anger, makes little difference, we still need to wake up and take charge of our collective destiny. The question is when will we wake up and what we are going to do. I don’t have any suggestions or answers for those questions, but I hope that when we collectively move in that direction we ask ourselves, “What kind of world will we leave our children and our grand children? Are we willing to stop eating crap and start taking care of ourselves?”
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The White House, Morality and Fiscal Responsibility
--by Mike Adams
According to the NY Times Article U.S. Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants by SARAH KERSHAW, under the GW Bush administration, Medicaid has been crippled in it's ability to provide many kinds of vital health care for immigrants. Not only are illegal immigrants being culled out of our population, legal student immigrants are being denied various life saving treatments as well. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is that the US born children of immigrants are being targeted for health care denial. The explanation is that full medicaid is available only to US citizens...this confuses me, because I was under the impression that anyone born in the US is automatically considered a US citizen.
Somehow, the situation makes me think of Bush's platform as a "Compassionate Conservative." It never really made any sense to me. I wasn't sure what he meant by that statement. After watching his actions in office, I have to assume that it means he experiences a deep and overwhelming compassion for the needs of corporate America to profit while a the same time, experiencing a deep and overwhelming level of conservatism with regards to helping the most vulnerable people in our society to survive and have lives worth living.
I am reminded of W's position with regards to Terri Schiavo. I distinctly remember Mr. Bush weighing in on the topic in March of 2005 by stating that, "it is wise to always err on the side of life" It was Mr. Bush's position that the US Congress should intervene on behalf of Mrs. Shiavo's parents who wanted to keep Terri's body alive by any medical means necessary.
Mr. Bush's position on that issue seems to be in sharp contrast to his position with regards to Medicaid. The Bush administration has ordered extensive audits of Medicaid services and they are systematically denying immigrants the ability to receive vital health services like chemotherapy, one is left to assume that Mr. Bush was being rather insincere with regards to always erring on the side of life. I wonder if perhaps what Bush meant was that it is always wise to err on the side of life when the voting public is paying attention...otherwise, it is better to err on the side of profit.
A quick look at Mr. Bush's record seems to point at an ongoing effort to mislead the American voting public into believing that he is on our side. Take for example W's current showdown with congress. Mr. Bush has preemptively threatened to veto any increased funding for veterans, health care, medical research, education, law enforcement and public works. He claims to be pushing congress for fiscal responsibility.
The man who led a massive misinformation campaign in order to deceive the American public and gain support for an unnecessary war, which every year, costs US Taxpayers almost six times as much money as the philanthropic benefits being championed by Congressional Democrats. The man who took a balanced budget and created the highest deficit in US Government history. The man who led the US while unemployment and energy costs soared to new heights. This man, GW Bush now wants to claim leadership in the realm of fiscal responsibility.
While his assertions are amusing, they are hardly worth consideration as a serious source of leadership. There is no shred of evidence that GW has any practical experience with fiscal responsibility or with compassion. It seems clear that he is NO fiscal or a moral leader for our times unless of course our goal is to become bankrupt in both the fiscal and the moral sense.
According to the NY Times Article U.S. Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants by SARAH KERSHAW, under the GW Bush administration, Medicaid has been crippled in it's ability to provide many kinds of vital health care for immigrants. Not only are illegal immigrants being culled out of our population, legal student immigrants are being denied various life saving treatments as well. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is that the US born children of immigrants are being targeted for health care denial. The explanation is that full medicaid is available only to US citizens...this confuses me, because I was under the impression that anyone born in the US is automatically considered a US citizen.
Somehow, the situation makes me think of Bush's platform as a "Compassionate Conservative." It never really made any sense to me. I wasn't sure what he meant by that statement. After watching his actions in office, I have to assume that it means he experiences a deep and overwhelming compassion for the needs of corporate America to profit while a the same time, experiencing a deep and overwhelming level of conservatism with regards to helping the most vulnerable people in our society to survive and have lives worth living.
I am reminded of W's position with regards to Terri Schiavo. I distinctly remember Mr. Bush weighing in on the topic in March of 2005 by stating that, "it is wise to always err on the side of life" It was Mr. Bush's position that the US Congress should intervene on behalf of Mrs. Shiavo's parents who wanted to keep Terri's body alive by any medical means necessary.
Mr. Bush's position on that issue seems to be in sharp contrast to his position with regards to Medicaid. The Bush administration has ordered extensive audits of Medicaid services and they are systematically denying immigrants the ability to receive vital health services like chemotherapy, one is left to assume that Mr. Bush was being rather insincere with regards to always erring on the side of life. I wonder if perhaps what Bush meant was that it is always wise to err on the side of life when the voting public is paying attention...otherwise, it is better to err on the side of profit.
A quick look at Mr. Bush's record seems to point at an ongoing effort to mislead the American voting public into believing that he is on our side. Take for example W's current showdown with congress. Mr. Bush has preemptively threatened to veto any increased funding for veterans, health care, medical research, education, law enforcement and public works. He claims to be pushing congress for fiscal responsibility.
The man who led a massive misinformation campaign in order to deceive the American public and gain support for an unnecessary war, which every year, costs US Taxpayers almost six times as much money as the philanthropic benefits being championed by Congressional Democrats. The man who took a balanced budget and created the highest deficit in US Government history. The man who led the US while unemployment and energy costs soared to new heights. This man, GW Bush now wants to claim leadership in the realm of fiscal responsibility.
While his assertions are amusing, they are hardly worth consideration as a serious source of leadership. There is no shred of evidence that GW has any practical experience with fiscal responsibility or with compassion. It seems clear that he is NO fiscal or a moral leader for our times unless of course our goal is to become bankrupt in both the fiscal and the moral sense.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Petraeus or Betray US...let's MoveOn!
-by Mike Adams
All right...I am no expert on the Middle East or on international politics. However, looking at available information about the situation, I have to weigh in on this topic.
I would agree with the sentiment that we should maintain a higher level of conduct with regards to our news and advertising than is often seen in today's media. However, having read the MoveOn ad in the NY Times, I can't see what the big deal is!
Seriously, Washington Republicans have very little wiggle room to point their fingers at anyone with regards to any alleged impugnment of a public figure. This is the same American right wing, which misled the American public with regards to John Kerry's military record. This is the same American right wing, which wasted countless hours in Washington holding impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair. America's right wing has such a history of savagely misleading the American public with regards to political figures, who won't forward their conservative agenda that there really is no room to take any conservative criticism of MoveOn seriously.
Putting all of that aside, an examination of the facts is probably in order. According to three independent reports, the GAO report, the NIE report and the Jones report, CSIS, Petraeus' surge strategy has failed. Despite those facts, Petraeus has publicly indicated that the surge is working, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress." (The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan). Washington Republicans want to portray MoveOn's advertisement as labeling General Petraeus a traitor. The fact is that MoveOn never used the word traitor...instead they indicated that perhaps the General has Betrayed us. It seems obvious to me that General Petraeus has in fact betrayed our trust. That he has allowed his position to be a political tool of the Executive Branch.
A quick look at MoveOn.org's site, shows that they have done their homework. They back up all of their allegations with external sources:
Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. “Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07
The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. “Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l
According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07
We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
(above italicized information taken from MoveOn site)
At a time when America's confidence in our elected officials is low, when Republican corruption is more rampant than at any time in the past several decades, when American service men and women are sacrificing their lives for an unjustifiable war started under false pretenses pushed by an Executive branch, who shows nothing but contempt for our Constitution and our Democracy...At a time like this, I wish there were more people and organizations willing to stand up and take some heat for telling the truth. Kudos to MoveOn.org.
Shame on Congress...quit wasting time trying to redirect the debate...its time that you deal with the war in Iraq. It's time you stop wasting American tax dollars on private militias, who's members are being paid five times as much as American service men and women. It's time you deal with America's health care and child care crisis. It's time you do the work which matters rather than focusing on fluff and giving the American public nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
All right...I am no expert on the Middle East or on international politics. However, looking at available information about the situation, I have to weigh in on this topic.
I would agree with the sentiment that we should maintain a higher level of conduct with regards to our news and advertising than is often seen in today's media. However, having read the MoveOn ad in the NY Times, I can't see what the big deal is!
Seriously, Washington Republicans have very little wiggle room to point their fingers at anyone with regards to any alleged impugnment of a public figure. This is the same American right wing, which misled the American public with regards to John Kerry's military record. This is the same American right wing, which wasted countless hours in Washington holding impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair. America's right wing has such a history of savagely misleading the American public with regards to political figures, who won't forward their conservative agenda that there really is no room to take any conservative criticism of MoveOn seriously.
Putting all of that aside, an examination of the facts is probably in order. According to three independent reports, the GAO report, the NIE report and the Jones report, CSIS, Petraeus' surge strategy has failed. Despite those facts, Petraeus has publicly indicated that the surge is working, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress." (The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan). Washington Republicans want to portray MoveOn's advertisement as labeling General Petraeus a traitor. The fact is that MoveOn never used the word traitor...instead they indicated that perhaps the General has Betrayed us. It seems obvious to me that General Petraeus has in fact betrayed our trust. That he has allowed his position to be a political tool of the Executive Branch.
A quick look at MoveOn.org's site, shows that they have done their homework. They back up all of their allegations with external sources:
Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. “Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07
The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. “Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l
According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07
We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
(above italicized information taken from MoveOn site)
At a time when America's confidence in our elected officials is low, when Republican corruption is more rampant than at any time in the past several decades, when American service men and women are sacrificing their lives for an unjustifiable war started under false pretenses pushed by an Executive branch, who shows nothing but contempt for our Constitution and our Democracy...At a time like this, I wish there were more people and organizations willing to stand up and take some heat for telling the truth. Kudos to MoveOn.org.
Shame on Congress...quit wasting time trying to redirect the debate...its time that you deal with the war in Iraq. It's time you stop wasting American tax dollars on private militias, who's members are being paid five times as much as American service men and women. It's time you deal with America's health care and child care crisis. It's time you do the work which matters rather than focusing on fluff and giving the American public nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Vitality of a Movement
--by Mike Adams
As Unitarian Universalists, one of our greatest strengths has been our desire to be inclusive…to make room for “different beliefs.” The value we place on inclusion has lead to our denominational covenant to affirm and promote our seven principles. It has lead to our movement’s participation in de-segregation and to our continued work on behalf of marginalized citizens of our world community.
Over the years, UU’s have passed resolutions at our General Assembly in order to become a more welcoming and diverse community of people. We have made some very impressive gains. Since 1970 when the GA passed a resolution in support of Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women, the number of female UU ministers has skyrocketed. There were fewer than thirty female ministers and today, more than fifty percent of UU ministers are women.
By contrast, there are currently only thirty people of color serving as UU ministers in our congregations. Here in New Mexico, more than twenty percent of our total population speaks Spanish. I’m not sure if any congregations in our state have a Hispanic Minister. However, in an attempt to discover how many Hispanic UU Ministers there are through a Google search, I discovered the following advertisement: “Unitarian Minister – Shop for Unitarian Minister, and deals on tons of other products at MonsterMarketplace. (click here).” While this was a fruitless and frustrating effort, it was at least amusing.
After attending this year’s GA in Portland, I started researching what would be needed to successfully start a Spanish speaking UU service in Santa Fe or to start a successful UU congregation in Pojoaque. I wrote to a congregation which I mistakenly thought had tried to start a Spanish speaking service. I received a reply from the minister indicating that they had never tried to start a Spanish speaking service, that in their town, most everyone who has a college education speaks English so there is no need for a Spanish speaking service.
I responded to this note with an email indicating that the minister’s response troubled me because I disagree that being a Unitarian Universalist necessitates having a college education. I believe that one of our denomination’s largest obstacles to growth is not necessarily racism, but instead classism. I pointed out that functionally, being classist makes us racist, because the majority of people who are unable to acquire a college education come from economically disadvantaged groups, many of whom are primarily of people of color. I said that I work in the construction field, that I regularly have very interesting conversations with my non-college educated co-workers about politics, philosophy and justice issues. It turns out that blue collar workers are equally concerned with the same issues that concern many UU’s. I indicated that blue-collar workers vote too, that the majority of people in this country and in this world have no college background. I said that I think it would be good if there were more people thinking about UU values when they go to the voting booth…when they decide whether to go shopping at Wal-Mart, etc…. I informed the minister that I have not completed a college degree, that I am largely ‘self educated’. I said that I have known many people, who, like me, never completed a college education, but they read books on philosophy, history, politics as well as regularly reading news papers. I indicated that a minister’s comments in particular have the power to offend and turn people away from a faith, which really could make a difference in the world. I ended by saying, “if we have covenanted to affirm and PROMOTE the inherent worth and dignity of every person, perhaps we want to consider if that might also mean making our faith available to all who share our concerns and values regardless of their intellectual prowess and educational training.”
The next day, the minister responded assuring me that self-educated is good and that there are some UU’s without a college education, that it’s fine and all are welcome. In fact, the minister indicated that there are many good and intelligent people without a college background and that we need to learn to work together. However, the minister went on to say that with regard to ‘denominational market targeting,’ it is quixotic to try and serve new immigrants who are mostly poorly educated Mexican Catholics by starting a Spanish language UU service…that it won’t work and that the minister couldn’t continue to converse…but thanks for sharing my concerns.
I decided not to respond to that message. What is there to say? Perhaps I lack the insight to respond in a way which could make a difference, but I don’t know how to acquire that skill right now. It concerns me that in a UU District which contains a very high population of native Spanish speaking people, a Unitarian Universalist minister would say that it is quixotic to start Spanish speaking services because the local Spanish speakers are, “Poorly educated Mexican Catholics” and I am left to infer they are therefore not good UU material.
I don’t believe that our well intentioned minister believes that Catholics are incapable of becoming Unitarian Universalists…in fact many of our members come from other religions, from which they turned away for a variety of personal reasons. I hope that the minister was not suggesting that Mexicans wouldn’t be good Unitarian Universalists. I feel certain that, in fact…the assumption was not about Mexicans so much as about the poorly educated. Our Unitarian Universalist movement seems to be incredibly prejudiced against people who lack ‘higher education.’ Unintentionally, we seem to value a sound intellect more than a true diversity of membership. This does not make us bad people…in makes us human, with the same sorts of prejudices, judgments and shortcomings that all people come with.
Unfortunately, as liberal thinkers, who don’t tolerate intolerance, we have accidentally made the entirely human conditions of being prejudiced and closed minded synonymous with being a bad person. We need to extricate the value judgment from the reality of human shortcomings. So long as we are human beings, we will never do away with prejudice, racism, xenophobia, impatience, greed, etc…we are stuck with those traits. As Unitarian Universalist, perhaps the best thing we can do is acknowledge those traits as we find them in ourselves and try to be responsible for them when we deal with others.
What are we going to do about this situation? I fear that as a movement, Unitarian Universalism is dying because we continue to maintain an intellectual snobbery. I don’t know what to do about it…I have only questions. I don’t feel qualified to tell you what to do…the only thing I can say is that a good place to start might be to honestly look individually and collectively at our own classism and prejudices. Maybe we ought to search monstermarketplace and find some ministers who will take racism and classism more seriously and challenge us to climb for higher ground.
As Unitarian Universalists, one of our greatest strengths has been our desire to be inclusive…to make room for “different beliefs.” The value we place on inclusion has lead to our denominational covenant to affirm and promote our seven principles. It has lead to our movement’s participation in de-segregation and to our continued work on behalf of marginalized citizens of our world community.
Over the years, UU’s have passed resolutions at our General Assembly in order to become a more welcoming and diverse community of people. We have made some very impressive gains. Since 1970 when the GA passed a resolution in support of Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women, the number of female UU ministers has skyrocketed. There were fewer than thirty female ministers and today, more than fifty percent of UU ministers are women.
By contrast, there are currently only thirty people of color serving as UU ministers in our congregations. Here in New Mexico, more than twenty percent of our total population speaks Spanish. I’m not sure if any congregations in our state have a Hispanic Minister. However, in an attempt to discover how many Hispanic UU Ministers there are through a Google search, I discovered the following advertisement: “Unitarian Minister – Shop for Unitarian Minister, and deals on tons of other products at MonsterMarketplace. (click here).” While this was a fruitless and frustrating effort, it was at least amusing.
After attending this year’s GA in Portland, I started researching what would be needed to successfully start a Spanish speaking UU service in Santa Fe or to start a successful UU congregation in Pojoaque. I wrote to a congregation which I mistakenly thought had tried to start a Spanish speaking service. I received a reply from the minister indicating that they had never tried to start a Spanish speaking service, that in their town, most everyone who has a college education speaks English so there is no need for a Spanish speaking service.
I responded to this note with an email indicating that the minister’s response troubled me because I disagree that being a Unitarian Universalist necessitates having a college education. I believe that one of our denomination’s largest obstacles to growth is not necessarily racism, but instead classism. I pointed out that functionally, being classist makes us racist, because the majority of people who are unable to acquire a college education come from economically disadvantaged groups, many of whom are primarily of people of color. I said that I work in the construction field, that I regularly have very interesting conversations with my non-college educated co-workers about politics, philosophy and justice issues. It turns out that blue collar workers are equally concerned with the same issues that concern many UU’s. I indicated that blue-collar workers vote too, that the majority of people in this country and in this world have no college background. I said that I think it would be good if there were more people thinking about UU values when they go to the voting booth…when they decide whether to go shopping at Wal-Mart, etc…. I informed the minister that I have not completed a college degree, that I am largely ‘self educated’. I said that I have known many people, who, like me, never completed a college education, but they read books on philosophy, history, politics as well as regularly reading news papers. I indicated that a minister’s comments in particular have the power to offend and turn people away from a faith, which really could make a difference in the world. I ended by saying, “if we have covenanted to affirm and PROMOTE the inherent worth and dignity of every person, perhaps we want to consider if that might also mean making our faith available to all who share our concerns and values regardless of their intellectual prowess and educational training.”
The next day, the minister responded assuring me that self-educated is good and that there are some UU’s without a college education, that it’s fine and all are welcome. In fact, the minister indicated that there are many good and intelligent people without a college background and that we need to learn to work together. However, the minister went on to say that with regard to ‘denominational market targeting,’ it is quixotic to try and serve new immigrants who are mostly poorly educated Mexican Catholics by starting a Spanish language UU service…that it won’t work and that the minister couldn’t continue to converse…but thanks for sharing my concerns.
I decided not to respond to that message. What is there to say? Perhaps I lack the insight to respond in a way which could make a difference, but I don’t know how to acquire that skill right now. It concerns me that in a UU District which contains a very high population of native Spanish speaking people, a Unitarian Universalist minister would say that it is quixotic to start Spanish speaking services because the local Spanish speakers are, “Poorly educated Mexican Catholics” and I am left to infer they are therefore not good UU material.
I don’t believe that our well intentioned minister believes that Catholics are incapable of becoming Unitarian Universalists…in fact many of our members come from other religions, from which they turned away for a variety of personal reasons. I hope that the minister was not suggesting that Mexicans wouldn’t be good Unitarian Universalists. I feel certain that, in fact…the assumption was not about Mexicans so much as about the poorly educated. Our Unitarian Universalist movement seems to be incredibly prejudiced against people who lack ‘higher education.’ Unintentionally, we seem to value a sound intellect more than a true diversity of membership. This does not make us bad people…in makes us human, with the same sorts of prejudices, judgments and shortcomings that all people come with.
Unfortunately, as liberal thinkers, who don’t tolerate intolerance, we have accidentally made the entirely human conditions of being prejudiced and closed minded synonymous with being a bad person. We need to extricate the value judgment from the reality of human shortcomings. So long as we are human beings, we will never do away with prejudice, racism, xenophobia, impatience, greed, etc…we are stuck with those traits. As Unitarian Universalist, perhaps the best thing we can do is acknowledge those traits as we find them in ourselves and try to be responsible for them when we deal with others.
What are we going to do about this situation? I fear that as a movement, Unitarian Universalism is dying because we continue to maintain an intellectual snobbery. I don’t know what to do about it…I have only questions. I don’t feel qualified to tell you what to do…the only thing I can say is that a good place to start might be to honestly look individually and collectively at our own classism and prejudices. Maybe we ought to search monstermarketplace and find some ministers who will take racism and classism more seriously and challenge us to climb for higher ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)