Janet Yellen's characterization of income inequality in this country as a "very serious problem" is well worth noting. Even moreso is one of the reasons she cites in support of this worrisome concern: "the decline of unions." Ms. Yellen made these statements earlier this week in her Senate confirmation hearing as President Obana's nominee to become the next Chair of the Federal Reserve. I laud Ms. Yellen's bravery in her use of the bully pulpit of the Senatorial hearings and in expending the necessary personal and professional capitol such statements require in advance of even a committee vote on her nomination. Further statements referencing the "cross purposes" of Federal Reserve actions and Congressional actions in response to our present economic crisis can easily be interpreted as a clear criticism of Congressional actions.
The recent decline in union membership and strength is not so much the result of inherent weaknesses within the union movement, but the result of a direct assault by legislative bodies on the state level and the movement within governmental and private industry to use subcontracted personnel rather than direct hires. Lots of folks bemoan income inequality, but few, especially those with access to the top ranks of power, clearly identify self-incriminating causal factors and therefore the corrective measures that make both good economic sense and comply with a commonly accepted sense of social justice.
I trust that the ship of state (read: and civil society) has the ability to self correct. The tragedy is the pain, suffering, and loss of life that results from the errors in judgment and the narrowly focused application of political conviction committed by those in authority. May history hold them accountable so that much the same mistakes are not repeated and that the common good is characterized by genuine universality.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
A recent vote in the US Senate and actions by the US Catholic Bishops prompt me to pursue further a line of thought expressed in my posting of September 5th.
The US Senate recently passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which addresses discrimination against LGBT persons in the workplace. President Obama has indicated that he would sign the legislation, if and when it arrives on his desk. Word from the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives is that this legislation will not be scheduled for a vote, so it is unlikely to proceed any further.
The US Council of Catholic Bishops has published two documents in recent weeks as the Senate was considering this legislation. These included: (1)a letter addressed to US senators, and (2)a backgrounder. Both are available on the USCCB website. In my estimation, the backgrounder is the more telling document. An attempt is made to distinguish between "inclination" (This is a curious choice of words over the more commonly used "orientation.") and conduct. There is reference to unjust and justifiable discrimination (The document uses the phrase: "discrimination that is legitimate."). The underlying assumption appears to be that Error has no Rights as evidenced by the statement: "...sexual conduct outside of [heterosexual] marriage...has no claim to any special protection by the state." I would postulate that as far as the authors of the backgrounder are concerned, "special" is a superfluous word. Their intent is to void any and all protections within the context of civil society. The statement also makes it clear that the term "sexual conduct" is all inclusive without reference to the gender, orientation, age, relationship, or other circumstance (with the exception of heterosexual marriage) of the participants in such conduct.
My September post suggested that a distinction without a difference was being proposed in Cardinal Dolan's statement about judging behaviors and not persons. It is my observation that the distinction being made in the recent documents between inclination or orientation and conduct is similarly built upon a foundation of sand that does not hold up in the day-to-day lives of individuals and in the common areas of social and civil interaction. The intellectualization of a distinction between unjust discrimination and legitimate discrimination is simply unworkable in this context and provides a dangerous guide for civil law. The position of the Catholic bishops is only workable if we accept the premise and the practicality of lifelong celibacy for each and every individual, who describes him or herself as LGBT. Such a position is simply inhumane and unnatural, i.e. in conflict with or in violation of human nature. In support of my critique, I offer the observation that "only 2% of Catholic priests achieve absolute celibacy" (G. Walker, 2004, as cited in Sexual and Intimacy Health of Roman Catholic Priests, P. McDevitt, 2012). It is crucial to remind ourselves that this is within the context of a group of men choosing a career which includes an explicit and very public commitment to live a celibate life. Is it not inhumane and unnatural to make this same demand of every person who discovers his/her sexual orientation to be something other than strictly defined heterosexuality? Contemporary science provides ample support for my position as well--the hard science of biology and the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, so maybe I should apologize for resorting to a high school debate tactic. But I won't.
The question may be restated as: Who gets to decide what is in error? In a diverse, secular society, the boundaries between the personal, the civil, and the sectarian/religious are in constant flux and subject to ongoing struggles and negotiations between the various parties and within the various parties themselves. The interface between civil law and personal/sectarian moral codes is one such boundary. A cursory examination of courtship practices in mainstream American society over the past two centuries or the variation in such practices across today's world provides ample evidence of substantive change and ongoing modification of what is proper, customary, acceptable, legal, and right. As a citizen in contemporary civil society, I may not have to celebrate diversity, but I must be clearly respectful and supportive of such diversity and be willing to accept and work with the personal intellectual and emotional discomfort that so often accompanies the naturally occurring differences in the human community. My personal discomfort may well be on the level of the personal or group moral tenets to which I subscribe.
The US Senate recently passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which addresses discrimination against LGBT persons in the workplace. President Obama has indicated that he would sign the legislation, if and when it arrives on his desk. Word from the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives is that this legislation will not be scheduled for a vote, so it is unlikely to proceed any further.
The US Council of Catholic Bishops has published two documents in recent weeks as the Senate was considering this legislation. These included: (1)a letter addressed to US senators, and (2)a backgrounder. Both are available on the USCCB website. In my estimation, the backgrounder is the more telling document. An attempt is made to distinguish between "inclination" (This is a curious choice of words over the more commonly used "orientation.") and conduct. There is reference to unjust and justifiable discrimination (The document uses the phrase: "discrimination that is legitimate."). The underlying assumption appears to be that Error has no Rights as evidenced by the statement: "...sexual conduct outside of [heterosexual] marriage...has no claim to any special protection by the state." I would postulate that as far as the authors of the backgrounder are concerned, "special" is a superfluous word. Their intent is to void any and all protections within the context of civil society. The statement also makes it clear that the term "sexual conduct" is all inclusive without reference to the gender, orientation, age, relationship, or other circumstance (with the exception of heterosexual marriage) of the participants in such conduct.
My September post suggested that a distinction without a difference was being proposed in Cardinal Dolan's statement about judging behaviors and not persons. It is my observation that the distinction being made in the recent documents between inclination or orientation and conduct is similarly built upon a foundation of sand that does not hold up in the day-to-day lives of individuals and in the common areas of social and civil interaction. The intellectualization of a distinction between unjust discrimination and legitimate discrimination is simply unworkable in this context and provides a dangerous guide for civil law. The position of the Catholic bishops is only workable if we accept the premise and the practicality of lifelong celibacy for each and every individual, who describes him or herself as LGBT. Such a position is simply inhumane and unnatural, i.e. in conflict with or in violation of human nature. In support of my critique, I offer the observation that "only 2% of Catholic priests achieve absolute celibacy" (G. Walker, 2004, as cited in Sexual and Intimacy Health of Roman Catholic Priests, P. McDevitt, 2012). It is crucial to remind ourselves that this is within the context of a group of men choosing a career which includes an explicit and very public commitment to live a celibate life. Is it not inhumane and unnatural to make this same demand of every person who discovers his/her sexual orientation to be something other than strictly defined heterosexuality? Contemporary science provides ample support for my position as well--the hard science of biology and the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, so maybe I should apologize for resorting to a high school debate tactic. But I won't.
The question may be restated as: Who gets to decide what is in error? In a diverse, secular society, the boundaries between the personal, the civil, and the sectarian/religious are in constant flux and subject to ongoing struggles and negotiations between the various parties and within the various parties themselves. The interface between civil law and personal/sectarian moral codes is one such boundary. A cursory examination of courtship practices in mainstream American society over the past two centuries or the variation in such practices across today's world provides ample evidence of substantive change and ongoing modification of what is proper, customary, acceptable, legal, and right. As a citizen in contemporary civil society, I may not have to celebrate diversity, but I must be clearly respectful and supportive of such diversity and be willing to accept and work with the personal intellectual and emotional discomfort that so often accompanies the naturally occurring differences in the human community. My personal discomfort may well be on the level of the personal or group moral tenets to which I subscribe.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Can there be a Catholic environmental movement?
Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, was recently quoted as saying "In Catholic thought, 'nature' is neither sacred nor divine, neither to be feared or to be revered and left untouched. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community to be entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. . . .It is hazardous - and ultimately absurd, indeed sinful - to employ biotechnology without the guidance of deeply responsible ethics. . . .Research must be done with ethics and a clear long-term vision that respects human dignity and strives for the common good." (Catholic News Service, October 23, 2013)
Christian thought speaks of mankind being made in the image of the Creator. Is it not reasonable to view all of nature as being made in the image of the Creator? I will postulate that we have more in common with the natural world than that which we do not hold in common. Wes Jackson writes: "The human race was born out of nature and it is out of nature that the human race and all life is sustained every second of every minute of every hour." (Altars of Unhewn Stone, Wes Jackson, 1987) Our ethics and our long-term vision must then respect the dignity of all of nature and strive for the common good of the entire community of nature. Humankind alone is not sufficient measure to guide one's actions. It is appropriate to revere nature and to leave, at least some areas, untouched motivated by either reverence or fear--as evidence of the natural beauty and the pristine quality of the gift or fearful of the negative consequences of our actions or our potential for misuse.
There can be a Catholic environmental movement, but it will need an updated Catholic thought.
Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, was recently quoted as saying "In Catholic thought, 'nature' is neither sacred nor divine, neither to be feared or to be revered and left untouched. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community to be entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. . . .It is hazardous - and ultimately absurd, indeed sinful - to employ biotechnology without the guidance of deeply responsible ethics. . . .Research must be done with ethics and a clear long-term vision that respects human dignity and strives for the common good." (Catholic News Service, October 23, 2013)
Christian thought speaks of mankind being made in the image of the Creator. Is it not reasonable to view all of nature as being made in the image of the Creator? I will postulate that we have more in common with the natural world than that which we do not hold in common. Wes Jackson writes: "The human race was born out of nature and it is out of nature that the human race and all life is sustained every second of every minute of every hour." (Altars of Unhewn Stone, Wes Jackson, 1987) Our ethics and our long-term vision must then respect the dignity of all of nature and strive for the common good of the entire community of nature. Humankind alone is not sufficient measure to guide one's actions. It is appropriate to revere nature and to leave, at least some areas, untouched motivated by either reverence or fear--as evidence of the natural beauty and the pristine quality of the gift or fearful of the negative consequences of our actions or our potential for misuse.
There can be a Catholic environmental movement, but it will need an updated Catholic thought.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
I have just returned from today's church service where the celebrant injected a request a cappella into the Prayers of the Faithful asking that "our nation be protected from our enemies." This particular celebrant has added this request on more than one occasion, so I will not excuse the wording by attributing it to composing on-the-fly. I would like to suggest an alternative format for future Prayers of the Faithful. Let us beseech the Lord of All "that we as a nation be reconciled with those whom we identify as enemy and who identify us as enemy."
Here are two links to articles that I found on-line this morning. The first was read before heading out the door to church; the second was read afterwards over a third or fourth cup of coffee warmed up in the microwave. Needles to say that these reads moved me more than today's church service--moved in a way that is appropriate on a Sunday morning.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/24/secondworldwar.broadcasting
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/world/europe/behind-flurry-of-killing-potency-of-hate.html?hp&_r=0
The articles speak to the complexity of human nature and the ways in which we organize and think about ourselves. Is it too much to ask that our religious ministers challenge the best that can be found in our nature and not concede to an uneasy peace of mutually assured destruction, which is a false security and a non-peace? Praying for protection from one's enemies is nothing more than asking for success in an arms race or victory on today's battlefield. We are fools to ask for so little; it is a crime against our humanity and the humanity of all to settle for so little.
Here are two links to articles that I found on-line this morning. The first was read before heading out the door to church; the second was read afterwards over a third or fourth cup of coffee warmed up in the microwave. Needles to say that these reads moved me more than today's church service--moved in a way that is appropriate on a Sunday morning.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/24/secondworldwar.broadcasting
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/world/europe/behind-flurry-of-killing-potency-of-hate.html?hp&_r=0
The articles speak to the complexity of human nature and the ways in which we organize and think about ourselves. Is it too much to ask that our religious ministers challenge the best that can be found in our nature and not concede to an uneasy peace of mutually assured destruction, which is a false security and a non-peace? Praying for protection from one's enemies is nothing more than asking for success in an arms race or victory on today's battlefield. We are fools to ask for so little; it is a crime against our humanity and the humanity of all to settle for so little.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Unintended Consequences, But Not Unforeseen
There is a move afoot to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's upper peninsula within an ancient mountain range--the Penokee Mountains.
The discussion of the proposed mine has focused exclusively on the potential environmental impacts, State mining laws, and the economic impact on local communities. I would like to raise two questions: (1)how will a mine in the Penokees impact on what remains of the iron ore/taconite industry on Minnesota's Iron Range? And (2)how will Australia's expanding iron ore production impact a Penokee mine?
The opening of Minnesota's Iron Range contributed significantly to the decline and loss of Michigan's and Wisconsin's iron ore industry 100 years ago. The older deep shaft mines could not compete with the new open-pit mines. Will not a Penokee mine with the latest technology from the ground up prove to be just too competitive for what remains of iron ore production on Minnesota's Range? One consequence may be increased pressure to increase non-ferrous metal production on the Range as the successor to iron ore production, which will increase the risk of environmental degradation from the technologies used to mine sulfide ore bodies.
Australia is in the midst of significantly increasing its exports of iron ore, with a number of mines currently coming on-line and scheduled for full production within the next two years. This is in the context of a glutted global iron ore market. Australia would appear to be in a position to more than compete with the U.S. mining industry in supplying the Asian markets. Coupling a competitive disadvantage with an oversupply does not bode well for a new mine in the Penokee Mountains, much less an existing mine on Minnesota's Iron Range. (For background, try this link: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15745/)
Who will lose if the proposed Penokee mine is less economically viable than estimated? Will it not be the local communities and the State of Wisconsin at large? Once in production, taxes, fees, and other payments to local units of government are all predicated on a profitable operation. The less profitable the venture, the less income that will accrue to those impacted by the mine and those bearing the financial responsibility to ameliorate those impacts. The projected windfall will dry up just as the tornado leaves destruction in its wake. The mine operators' cut shows up on the expense side of the ledger; stockholders and units of government will share in the profits (after expenses), if and when there are any. Expenses are paid first and are carried forward year after year minimizing or eliminating profits.
What assurances are there that the proposed mine can be successful both in its own right and without destroying our neighbors and our neighbors' communities, which lie to the west?
There is a move afoot to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's upper peninsula within an ancient mountain range--the Penokee Mountains.
The discussion of the proposed mine has focused exclusively on the potential environmental impacts, State mining laws, and the economic impact on local communities. I would like to raise two questions: (1)how will a mine in the Penokees impact on what remains of the iron ore/taconite industry on Minnesota's Iron Range? And (2)how will Australia's expanding iron ore production impact a Penokee mine?
The opening of Minnesota's Iron Range contributed significantly to the decline and loss of Michigan's and Wisconsin's iron ore industry 100 years ago. The older deep shaft mines could not compete with the new open-pit mines. Will not a Penokee mine with the latest technology from the ground up prove to be just too competitive for what remains of iron ore production on Minnesota's Range? One consequence may be increased pressure to increase non-ferrous metal production on the Range as the successor to iron ore production, which will increase the risk of environmental degradation from the technologies used to mine sulfide ore bodies.
Australia is in the midst of significantly increasing its exports of iron ore, with a number of mines currently coming on-line and scheduled for full production within the next two years. This is in the context of a glutted global iron ore market. Australia would appear to be in a position to more than compete with the U.S. mining industry in supplying the Asian markets. Coupling a competitive disadvantage with an oversupply does not bode well for a new mine in the Penokee Mountains, much less an existing mine on Minnesota's Iron Range. (For background, try this link: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15745/)
Who will lose if the proposed Penokee mine is less economically viable than estimated? Will it not be the local communities and the State of Wisconsin at large? Once in production, taxes, fees, and other payments to local units of government are all predicated on a profitable operation. The less profitable the venture, the less income that will accrue to those impacted by the mine and those bearing the financial responsibility to ameliorate those impacts. The projected windfall will dry up just as the tornado leaves destruction in its wake. The mine operators' cut shows up on the expense side of the ledger; stockholders and units of government will share in the profits (after expenses), if and when there are any. Expenses are paid first and are carried forward year after year minimizing or eliminating profits.
What assurances are there that the proposed mine can be successful both in its own right and without destroying our neighbors and our neighbors' communities, which lie to the west?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Noodles and Chicken
BEST USED BY APRIL 30, 2009
Recent newscasts and newspaper articles have spoken about the confusion with SELL BY and USE BY dates. Today I took the opportunity to perform my own test. Test subject: one. Trial: one.
This afternoon when neither a Brewer's baseball game nor a central division football game could hold my interest, I found myself looking through and rearranging the camping gear. I am not sure what my intentions were; other than "maybe someday... "
In the course of my moreorless aimless activity, I came across two packages of freeze dried entrees. They are leftovers from canoe trips where they served as emergency rations should we have been unsuccessful in providing ourselves with a freshly caught fish supper. I decided to make up the Noodles and Chicken to see if it was eatable. (I don't think that I will be needing emergency rations in the foreseeable future. If I should, there is a package of Mexican Style Rice and Chicken remaining with a best used by date of June 1, 2008.)
The dish simply made up according to the directions was quite good. It certainly didn't taste like it was four years too old. Then again, I have no idea what four-years-too-old should taste like. I suppose the next criterion as to whether the stuff was any good is whether or not I avoid an episode of gastric distress. That may serve as the subject for a future post or I may decide some things are best left "off the record."
BEST USED BY APRIL 30, 2009
Recent newscasts and newspaper articles have spoken about the confusion with SELL BY and USE BY dates. Today I took the opportunity to perform my own test. Test subject: one. Trial: one.
This afternoon when neither a Brewer's baseball game nor a central division football game could hold my interest, I found myself looking through and rearranging the camping gear. I am not sure what my intentions were; other than "maybe someday... "
In the course of my moreorless aimless activity, I came across two packages of freeze dried entrees. They are leftovers from canoe trips where they served as emergency rations should we have been unsuccessful in providing ourselves with a freshly caught fish supper. I decided to make up the Noodles and Chicken to see if it was eatable. (I don't think that I will be needing emergency rations in the foreseeable future. If I should, there is a package of Mexican Style Rice and Chicken remaining with a best used by date of June 1, 2008.)
The dish simply made up according to the directions was quite good. It certainly didn't taste like it was four years too old. Then again, I have no idea what four-years-too-old should taste like. I suppose the next criterion as to whether the stuff was any good is whether or not I avoid an episode of gastric distress. That may serve as the subject for a future post or I may decide some things are best left "off the record."
Thursday, September 12, 2013
The lady of the house has been gone since this past weekend tending to family business. That means that the home front has been downsized to a one-man operation. And I mean literally a one-man operation and not literally as in not literally factual, but used for emphasis.
Even though home alone, I have been acting responsibly and tending to a number of repair, fix-it, and minor improvement projects. I even power washed the deck. I tried that once several years back; I was so disappointed in the final outcome that I have stayed away from that task ever since. A day or two before the lady left town, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the current state of deck affairs and her expectation that something be done about it. This time around, I revised my earlier deck washing technique and employed a lot more patience. The end result supports my re-assessment that deck washing can be a worthwhile venture and my inclination is to do it all over again without waiting several years and then only in response to a direct order.
It was early afternoon, and I was feeling good. There were a couple of things remaining on the most current to-do list, but I also needed some things before I could tackle those items. Why not take a trip to Menards? It is only a 150 mile round trip; I'll just consider it as shipping and handling. I also figured I earned a little time off, so why not a road trip. I consulted with the members of the household present and heard neither an objection nor a word of caution. The weather was great; one couldn't have asked for better September weather for a road trip. I will admit that if the leaves were turning, it would have been downright spectacular. A 3:00PM club sandwich lunch was an added treat; every now and then a trucker has to fuel up and check fluid levels to insure that he keeps on keeping on.
Even though home alone, I have been acting responsibly and tending to a number of repair, fix-it, and minor improvement projects. I even power washed the deck. I tried that once several years back; I was so disappointed in the final outcome that I have stayed away from that task ever since. A day or two before the lady left town, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the current state of deck affairs and her expectation that something be done about it. This time around, I revised my earlier deck washing technique and employed a lot more patience. The end result supports my re-assessment that deck washing can be a worthwhile venture and my inclination is to do it all over again without waiting several years and then only in response to a direct order.
It was early afternoon, and I was feeling good. There were a couple of things remaining on the most current to-do list, but I also needed some things before I could tackle those items. Why not take a trip to Menards? It is only a 150 mile round trip; I'll just consider it as shipping and handling. I also figured I earned a little time off, so why not a road trip. I consulted with the members of the household present and heard neither an objection nor a word of caution. The weather was great; one couldn't have asked for better September weather for a road trip. I will admit that if the leaves were turning, it would have been downright spectacular. A 3:00PM club sandwich lunch was an added treat; every now and then a trucker has to fuel up and check fluid levels to insure that he keeps on keeping on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)