Category Archives: Thinking

Housekeeping on My Candidates List

Posted on by
2

As in 2008 I’m attempting to keep an accurate list of the men and women running for President in 2012. It’s not an easy task as I wish to go beyond the candidates who have enough money and media exposure to be household names (quick, name anyone other than President Obama running for the Democratic nomination). It’s hard sometimes to tell who is really running; many of the candidates I have listed appear to have put up a web page and don’t do anything else. From time to time I click on the pages to see if anyone has dropped out; they almost never say they do and I’m left to wonder.

Tonight I randomly clicked on the page for independent candidate Rajesh Raghavan. His page on blogspot has been removed. I looked to see if perhaps he has moved his page and I haven’t found anything. There is a page connected with the Federal Election Commission; it tracks the money to his campaign. As I write this he has raised $550 (of which $500 is from him) and has spent $347 leaving him a balance of $203. Presumably most of the $347 was the blogspot post.

From time to time a candidate googles himself and finds my page and contacts me. This has already happened with one candidate. If you are connected with Mr. Raghavan’s campaign, let me know what to do with my list. As for now I’m removing it.

Waiting in the Dark with Steve Lopez's Dad

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Lopez is a columnist with the Los Angeles Times and I often find his columns thought provoking. This past Sunday he wrote a column on his father who is in declining health. I strongly encourage you to read it.

Steve speaks in strong and stirring words about how his 83 year old father has been a man of great strength and pride, and now at 83 years old is reduced to a man who fell one night on his way to the bathroom. Neither he nor his wife were able to get him back on his feet and the result was they spent the night on the floor before they got medical help. Steve wonders if our current health care system will care for his father in a way that honors the man that he is.

I’m afraid it won’t. We have Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor) that is frankly, the socialized medicine we have been warned about. Health care in our sunset years is good at keeping our hearts beating and our lungs inflating, but not good at asking the larger questions. Questions like: “When it is enough? When it is time to recognize that nobody lives forever and we need to change the equation to recognize this.” Questions like: “When are we done keeping you alive at all costs and should instead start thinking about giving you a good death?”

In my experience we’re a long way from that. While we all know in our heads that we will die one day, many of us live as if we were going to be healthy forever and have a right to whatever health care will provide that. At the end of our lives we are the primary drivers of what we want. Assuming we have health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance), we can instruct our health care providers to do whatever we want, even to the point of keeping us alive on a respirator/ventilator. This is a machine that will keep pumping air into our lungs even when every other organ in our bodies has stopped. Most of us won’t choose this if given proper information, but if we can’t communicate and there is nobody to legally advocate for us, most health care providers will assume we want it all, and will keep us alive at any cost.

What’s wrong here? Well, several things. First, I believe that we need to stop thinking of ourselves as immortal. That means that when we are young and healthy we need to start talking with our family members about what we want at the end of our life. If we don’t want to be kept alive on a respirator, or a feeding tube, or by having a paramedic restart our heart, we need to say so and write it down. There are many ways to do this; my favorite is a POLST form. If nothing else, talking with your loved ones about what you want is a good place to start. If things go south in our lives in a hurry, our next of kin is our best ally if we can’t speak for ourselves.

Second, we need to have a national dialogue about how we allocate health care resources. Again, some scream that this will “ration” health care. Let’s face facts: we already ration health care, only we do it now by health care coverage. If you’re 95 years old on Medicare with pancreatic cancer you can get all the chemo, surgery, and radiation that’s available. On the other hand, if you’re 25 years old and work for an employer who doesn’t offer health care, and you have early onset breast cancer, you’re out of luck. It doesn’t matter that your early onset breast cancer is way more curable than pancreatic cancer. It also doesn’t matter that a 25 year old with curable cancer has a much better long term prognosis than a 95 year old with incurable cancer. It only matters on who will pay for this.

To be fair there are doctors and other heath care providers who are heroically telling elderly and terminal patients that they aren’t candidates for aggressive treatments. For their efforts they are sometimes screamed at and threatened by well meaning patients and families who accuse them of being uncaring or greedy when the opposite is true. When President Obama attempted to make this easier by reimbursing doctors for these meetings, Sarah Palin and others called these “death panels.”

As my fellow Baby Boomers are beginning to age into the Medicare problem our numbers are straining the system and at some point we will need to reform it. My prayer is that we come to an understanding of what health care can and cannot do. Providing someone with a good death, free of pain, with the people we love around us, is the last best thing our medical community can do for us.

Is There Anyone Not Running For President?

Posted on by
Reply

In my last post I talked about listing the people running for President in 2012. Running for President is fairly easy: you just need to have been born in the United States (which includes our territories) and be 35 years old. There are, currently, two major parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. It’s a virtually certainty that the winner of the 2012 election will be from one of those two parties. Furthermore, I expect I join most Democrats in believing that President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. The Republican nominee is a wide open field.

Nevertheless, I’ve chosen to add other candidates to my list. Some are challengers to major party candidates; others are members of minor parties; finally, others are people who belong to no party and run as independents. I don’t expect any of them to move into the White House on January 20, 2013, but I’m including them to show that there is no reason they can’t.

Frankly, the job of looking at their web pages has been a painful job. I find most of them delusional and think our Founding Fathers would be holding their noses too. Most of them are running on a platform of “the past years/decades/centuries have shown that our forefathers would be horrified at seeing what the government is doing. I’ve arrived just in time to save us. Vote for me.” On the whole they believe that government is too intrusive and that we would do better if nobody told us what to do.

I’m American enough to not like to be told what to do but I also believe that most of us like what the government does when we need something. I like the idea that my local government will send someone to my house of I (or someone else in my family) have a heart attack or if my house catches on fire. I like having a public library system even if I don’t use it very often. I like the idea of having a good school system even if I don’t have children who attend (because, let’s face it, the students in those schools are the people I’m counting on to contribute to social security when we’re retired).

I’m not impressed by all the people who claim to “recapture” the values of the founders of our country and have no intention of voting for them, but I’m American enough to give them a voice. I’m encouraged by the belief that our next President is chosen not by those who chose to run, but by those who choose to vote.

Choose to vote.

Updating This Page

Posted on by
Reply

A great deal has happened in the past few weeks and I haven’t had time to write much about it. Every year around the first of May I travel with Nancy to the annual Pediatric Academic Society Convention and this year it was in Denver. I’ve gone to enough of these to have become friends with several of her colleagues and I think I look forward to seeing them as much as she does. Denver is a beautiful city but I have to confess it’s not a place I would go to without a reason. Anyway, next year’s meeting is Boston and I’m already looking forward to that.

While we were in Denver we got word that Osama bin Laden was killed in a shootout with a group of Navy Seals. I have to confess that while I normally prefer slow justice over shootouts, I applauded his death that night. The hunt for bin Laden took nearly 10 years and parts of two Presidential administrations (technically it was 13 years and three administrations; President Clinton began the hunt in 1998 after the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania). President Obama was rightly concerned that if bin Laden was captured alive he would become a target for Americans being kidnapped and held as hostages. Any trial for bin Laden would have taken years and have given him a platform that the world doesn’t need. As for the Seals who (once again) got the job done: they don’t do press conferences or curtain calls. We likely will never know their names, but I pray they understand the depth of the phrase “a grateful nation.”

It’s also time to update this page. I’ve taken out the casualty counter on the left column. I was hesitant to do that because I didn’t want to give the impression that anyone is forgetting that we still have young men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that I just can’t find a casualty counter for Afghanistan and that’s where our focus is now. If I can find one, I’ll put it in. In its place I’m putting in the beginnings of stuff for the Presidential race. I recognize that the election isn’t for 17 months, but the race has already begun. For now I’m going to list the candidates; when the major parties start their primary season I hope to keep a delegate count. This was a bit of a nightmare for me in 2008, but I’ll do what I can. My process for listing someone is twofold: I find his/her name using a Google search and the candidate has an active web page. I’m guessing not everyone is happy with this process, but it’s the best I can come up with. If you have a better system, email me.

Of course, according to Family Radio it won’t matter since Judgement Day is a short 3 days away.

It's Tax Day. Do You Know Where Your Money Is Going? You Can Find Out

Posted on by
Reply

Hopefully anyone reading this has already done his taxes, but it’s an interesting point to ask where the money is going. We have a funny attitude in the country: we look at taxes as a personal assault on our checkbooks, and yet we demand that the government fix everything we perceive is wrong. I’m one of those “tax and spend” liberals who actually doesn’t mind paying taxes for the privilege of living in a free country, knowing the local fire department still makes house calls, and exercising freedoms of speech and religion.

The White House has a web page where you can calculate (in general terms) where your money goes. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, but the taxes we pay are a bit of a shell game. If you look at your paycheck stub you can see that the federal government takes money out of three different categories: federal tax, social security, and medicare. In reality all three deductions go into the same pot, and this pot pays social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, national parks, foreign aid, and NPR.

It’s a pretty simple formula and I’m a little surprised that nobody thought of this sooner. The percentage of the budget is fixed and this page allows you to put in the taxes you paid into a calculator. Go ahead and try. It could be hopeful or sobering, depending on your views. As for me, I like that Nancy and I paid $879.53 for Veteran’s benefits.

Sesquicentennial of our Darkest Hour

Posted on by
1

Today marks the 150th Anniversary (Sesquicentennial) of the Civil War (or War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression). No event in our history as a nation says more about who we are than this: the time between April 12, 1861 (the attack of Ft. Sumter) and April 9, 1965 (the surrender at Appomattox) we were a country at war with ourselves. By the time it ended 625,000 of us would be dead (more than died in World War I and II combined).

There are probably more books written about these four years than any other time in our history. Here are suggestions from books I’ve read:

Growing up in Northern Virginia (and as an adult living in the city of Manassas) I was struck by how the war continued to live in people who were born 100 years later. I was aware that the war itself was called by different names (Civil War, War Between the States, etc.) and I learned that even the battles had different names: Bull Run vs. Manassas, Chancellorsville vs. Wilderness, and others.

I also learned that the reasons for the war were not in agreement. In the north it was viewed as a war about whether or not slavery would exist, and in the south it was about whether states (who voluntarily joined the union) could leave the union. The more I read the more I’m convinced that slavery is the reality that cannot be ignored.

The roots of the Civil War can (and must be) traced back to the writing of our Constitution. The framers who drafted the Constitution in 1787 faced a dilemma when it came to slaves: how can we say all men are created equal when clearly some are the property of others. Several of framers were slave owners themselves, and while they may have found the institution of slavery distasteful, they participated in it. They also believed that the new nation would not survive if they tried to outlaw slavery. Essentially they punted, and hoped the issue would be resolved in future generations. It is interesting to note one compromise in the 1st Article of the Constitution: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years [ie, not slaves, but indentured servants], and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” In other words, if you owned 5 slaves they were counted as 3 persons in the census.

By the time of the Civil War, some 80 years later, slavery had become an institution in the South and most Northerners either had no opinion or found it distasteful but not serious enough to end. It was also a time of Westward expansion into new territories like Missouri and Kansas. Many people in the North, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to stop slavery where it is and not allow it to move west. Southern slave owners were outraged and believed this discriminated against them. They felt so alienated that they came to the decision that since they voluntarily joined the United States in 1789 they could just as voluntarily pull out and form their own nation. Those in the North disagreed and believed that joining together in 1789 was an irreconcilable covenant that can’t be broken. The war officially started on April 12, 1861 when Southern forces (or members of the newly formed Confederate States of America) began shelling the garrison at Ft. Sumner, South Carolina.

It’s my belief that the South never really believed the North would fight all that hard, and it is generally believed that the South expected a victory in a few weeks or months. It didn’t happen that way. President Lincoln was adamant that the Union be preserved and came only later to the belief that the post war Union would prohibit slavery. By the time the war ended the South was in shambles and the next 12 years would be called “Reconstruction.” In some ways this was as bad a time for the South as the war itself. After President Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865 he was replaced by Andrew Johnson a Southerner who remained in the Senate from Tennessee even after his state seceded. He was a weak man and Radical Republicans made life very difficult in the South. Out of this came a South that wanted to see pre-Civil War days as much better than they were. They saw it as a time when ladies and gentlemen were safe while they cared for slaves who were content with their lives. They denied that the war was about slavery or its westward expansion and that freeing slaves made them into dangerous men roaming the countryside looking for opportunities to harm or kill white people. The 1915 movie Birth of a Nation makes this point and claims the Ku Klux Klan formed as a way of protecting white people from former slaves.

Even today the Confederate Battle Flag draws controversy as some see it as a symbol of slavery while others see it as Southern heritage and tradition.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 5: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: The Government Doing What It's Supposed To Do

Posted on by
Reply

Last month the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and I’m finding great satisfaction over it.

Here some background and the basic facts of the case: In the last few decades there has been an increased belief that there is a link between vaccines and illness, especially autism (you can read more of my views on this in a previous post). Out of this came a well founded fear that drug companies would no longer be willing to develop or manufacture childhood vaccines. In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). Section 22(b)(1) states this:

[n]o vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings

This act does not prevent anyone from suing a drug company if they did something wrong, but it did say you can’t sue if they did everything right and the person had a bad outcome.

Hannah Bruesewitz received the DPT (diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus) vaccine and later developed seizures. Her parents sued Wyeth claiming the vaccine caused this. Because they could not prove that Wyeth did anything wrong (or for that matter that there was a link between the vaccine and her seizures) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wyeth.

This puts me in a strange place as I almost never side with these large drug companies, and I virtually never side with Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.

Our nation is currently full of people who believe that the free market can take care of our needs and government shouldn’t interfere. But I find that this was our government doing well what it should be doing. The free market would have made it unprofitable (and therefore impossible) to develop and manufacture vaccines that have become essential to childhood health. Congress passed, the President signed, and the Supreme Court affirmed this legislation.

Way to go.

What If I'm a Christian and There's No Parable For This?

Posted on by
Reply

If you survey Christians and ask how we decide between right and wrong, many of us will point to our faith. I’m happy about that, but what do we do when people of the same faith come to different views of the same issue and both claim to be right?

It’s happening in many places with many issues, but a story in the Los Angeles Times on Friday struck my interest. The story is about immigration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), Stephen Sandstrom and Tony Yapias.

Both live in Utah, both are Mormon, both look to their faith to decide moral issues, and they disagree on immigration. Mr. Sandstrom was born in Orem, Utah (and is a citizen by birth). He believes that being a Christian means following the rules and obeying the laws. Someone who enters this country outside of the law violates this and should be deported. As a state legislator he introduced a bill, patterned after a similar bill in Arizona, which requires the police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect may be undocumented. He is quoted in the LA Times story: “This country is the greatest nation on Earth because God had a hand in its formation. A lot of that is because . . . we obey the rule of law. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration jeopardizes the rule of law.”

Tony Yapias was born in Peru and when he was a child his father came to the U.S. to forge a better life for his family. Tony and the rest of his family were able to join his father when Tony was 14 but the strain of the separation was too much for his parents’ marriage. As an adult Tony joined the LDS church in part because of their emphasis on family.

Which one is right? The issue of immigration has divided many groups, but most Christian groups support immigrants and oppose laws like the one Mr. Sandstrom advances. But most Christian groups aren’t like the Mormons. They are hesitant to view any law as wrong. In the LA Times article it talks about how they are Pro-Life, but discourage anything that protests legal abortions. They counsel their people who live in Communist countries to obey the laws, even the ones they disagree with.

This is one reason I’m not a Mormon. I don’t see God’s hand in many of our laws. I don’t think God is present in Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson and I think there is a strong case to be made that our government continues to need the voices of our prophets. I believe the prophets answered Dred Scott with the 14th Amendment and Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education. If you’ve read a previous post you know where I stand on homophobia.

I believe it’s more important to be faithful than obedient, and I believe it’s more important to follow my conscience than my intellect. I am many things: I am a married man, I am an American, I am an inhabitant of Earth, and I am a Child of God. The fact that I’m bound by God matters more to me than my connection to the United States (whose 14th Amendment tells me we who were born here are all citizens). If someone born 40 miles south of where I live wants to make a better life for his children, I get it. My grandparents moved south (from Canada to Massachusetts) to make a better life and I benefit from that. If they cleaned hotel rooms and carried luggage so I can be who I am, I am grateful.

And I refuse to deny that to the next generation from now. The next man, woman, or child I meet may well have a hard time speaking to me in English. That’s OK because my grandparents had a hard time with English too. If that person is cleaning my house, mowing my lawn, or waiting for work outside a hardware store, I admire hm (her) for making a better life for his/her children. And I pray that his/her descendants are grateful.

And with respect to Mr. Stanstrom, I think he’s wrong.

It Just Doesn't Pay to be Homophobic Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

You can probably guess my bias from the title of this blog, but I’ve been following 2 current issues with great interest: Proposition 8 and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (the current policy on gays serving in the US military).” It appears to me that equal rights for the gay population is only a matter of time.

Proposition 8 was a ballot measure here in California to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. There is some background to this: in March of 2000 California voted to prohibit same sex marriage by state law with Propsition 22. This law was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court who ruled 4-3 that Prop 22 is unconstitutional.

People who oppose gay marriage then decided that the best way to combat this was to pass another proposition that amends the state constitution. After all, the constitution can’t be unconstitutional. Backed by big bucks from the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Knights of Columbus, Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. Supporters thought they were done.

They weren’t. On May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court determined that Proposition 8 was constitutional, but opponents of Prop 8 then went to federal court on January 11, 2009, arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, Kristen Kelly and Sandra Steir, filed because they were denied a marriage license. The defendant was Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger by virtue of being governor. In a funny twist, neither Governor Schwartzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to actively defend Prop 8. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 fell to a group called Protect Marriage.

The case came before Judge John Walker. This appeared to be good news for the defendants as he ruled in a previous case that “Gay Olympics” was a copyright violation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and they had to change their name to the Gay Games. He had also been appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker surprised most of us by finding for the plaintiffs, deciding that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s now on appeal but it’s funny to see that all the people who liked John Walker before his decision have now decided that he’s gay (since he’s never been married) and the decision has no merit. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Meanwhile, in the military, they are still trying to decide what to do with men and women who are willing to fight and die for our freedom who happen to be gay. When President Clinton was running in 1992 there was pressure from the gay community to remove the ban on gays serving in the military. During the campaign he essentially promised to repeal the ban. Alas, once in office he faced more opposition than he expected and he bowed to that pressure. In 1993 Congress passed a bill called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and President Clinton signed it. Simply put, it legislated that nobody is allowed to ask if a service member is gay, and a gay servicemember is required to keep his/her orientation a secret. If (s)he says or does anything to indicate his/her gay orientation, (s)he can be immediately discharged from the service. Since passage 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged for being gay. In the gay community, DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) has been seen as open season on the gay population.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the debate began again. As I write this the bill to repeal DADT is moving through Congress. The House has already voted to repeal it, and it’s stuck in the Senate. It’s interesting to see what’s being said. My most interesting person is Senator John McCain. At first blush you’d think he’d be the “go to” guy on this issue given his background. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a pilot during Vietnam. He was shot down and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam. If ever there was a case where a group needed unit cohesion, it would be here. He has opposed DADT and it was easy to do this when the the leaders of the military opposed it. In fact, in 1986 he said this: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

He probably never expected this to happen, but it has. On December 2, 2010 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said this:

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.
And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

He made this statement against the backdrop of a study released by the Pentagon on November 30, 2010. The survey reviewed the beliefs of 115,000 active duty members of the military and 44,200 military spouses. About 70% of them indicated they had no problem with the idea of allowing gays to serve. Those in uniform lead those out of uniform: only 58% of all Americans favor this. Interestingly, the majority of both groups favor repealing DADT. And the 115,000? Well, 69% report that they have already worked with a gay servicemember and 92% of them said it had a positive impact or no impact on their working relationship.

So here we are: the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the repeal of DADT. And Senator McCain? He has abandoned his previous statement and now says: “This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency.” At no point does he admit he abandoned his earlier promise. Then again, he’s the guy who ran with Sarah Palin.

Of the people who still oppose DADT, they all pretty much respect Barry Goldwater who said this in 1993:

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing – but it’s pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn’t true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so. In fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act – not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows? (they say) perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential, period. That seems ridiculous now – as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man, our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy, like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least, and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it no American able to serve should be allowed – much less given an excuse – to not serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

Thank you Senator Goldwater (or, as your license plate said, AuH20).

Oh, and by the say, my favorite quotation from the report is this:

As one special operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy (in the unit). He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,’

Nowhere have I found a quotation that said: “I served with a homosexual and it hurt us as a unit.” Let me know if you have.

Is the Pope Becoming Pastoral?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week we read some surprising news coming out of the Vatican: there might be some movement on the condom front (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Pope Benedict XVI, in the course of speaking with a German journalist, seemed to indicate that there are times when the use of a condom is permissible.

Peter Seewald interviewed the Pope in anticipation of publishing a book: Light of the World: The Pope, the World and Signs of the Times. They had collaborated on two previous books: The Ratzinger Report and Salt of the Earth. In the course of the interviews the Pope indicated that there may be times when it is permissible for someone to use a condom. He illustrated this by talking about a male prostitute who is HIV positive. He wishes to change his life but isn’t ready yet, and he doesn’t wish to spread the virus any further. The Pope feels that in this case it would be permissible for him to use a condom as a way of not spreading the virus while he continues to reform his life.

This has caused a great deal of confusion in the Catholic world given the historic (and histrionic) view toward condoms and other forms of birth control. Before we learned about AIDS and the role of HIV, condoms were almost exclusively used as birth control for heterosexual couples. Since the Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control, condom use was always prohibited. In the 1980s gay men began to use condoms as a way to prevent the spread of AIDS, and it widened to include any couple who wished to practice “safe sex.” Unfortunately many groups (the Vatican included) responded to this by incorrectly claiming that condoms aren’t effective in stopping the virus. As recently as March, 2009 the Pope claimed that condoms could “aggravate” the spread of AIDS.

So what gives? The Catholic blogosphere is on fire with the question: “Has the Catholic Church changed its teaching?” The Vatican has gone to great lengths to claim it hasn’t, and in the final analysis, they’re right.

But it’s more complicated than that.

The Catholic Church still prohibits artificial birth control among married couples and any sexual activity among unmarried couples. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, this includes all gay couples. The change has been not one of doctrine or teaching, but pastoral application.

In the past the Church has appeared (at least to me) to draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Simply put, if you are committing a sin you need to stop. If you are practicing birth control or cheating your employees, there is no middle ground: stop and stop now. The Pope’s remarks appear to acknowledge that in the struggle to change our behavior, we sometimes need to take intermediate steps. I applaud this step and encourage the Pope to continue doing what he’s doing.

I mentioned earlier that this has created some activity in the Catholic blogosphere. Several writers are getting it right, but many are getting it wrong. My favorite is a string on the Catholic Answers forum.

My final word on this (and I get the final word because it’s my blog) is my hope that this increased interest in pastoral applications will lead the Pope and the Vatican to examine again some of their doctrines. The birth control stuff doesn’t bother me because most Catholic couples already cheerfully ignore this anyway. But I do hope that this leads to a sense of conversion (an intermediate step, if you will) to look again at Church stands that discriminate against women, homosexuals, and other members of our Church. We’ll see.