PaleoCrat Tribune

Speaking Truth to Power!

Archives for Mark Luxford

Why I Support Marriage Equality

5th May 2013 by under Blog, Mark Luxford     

I am heterosexual, but I stand with my lesbian and gay brothers and sisters as they fight for marriage equality.

I reject the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.  It’s a scientific fact that same-sex sexual activity is seen throughout the animal kingdom, and is seen in the higher primates at levels comparable to the human species.  How can something that is seen throughout nature be said to be unnatural?  Same-sex sexual activity may not be natural for heterosexuals, but that doesn’t mean that it violates the Laws of Nature.  On the contrary, it is fully in accord with nature.

I reject the claim that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.  There are two ways of interpreting the Bible.  There’s the literal approach used by fundamentalists which says that the Bible is to be taken for what it says.  The Bible says God created heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh.  So, the literalist interpretation is that Creation took place within the span of one of our weeks.  The other approach is the historical-critical approach, which is based on the premise that what a Bible text means is whatever it meant to the person who wrote it so long ago.  It requires an understanding of the text in the original situation and then applying the meaning to the present situation.  It requires an understanding of the society and culture of that time.  It requires a level of understanding that most people do not have.

Using the literalist approach to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some conclude that those cities were destroyed because of the widespread homosexuality practiced there, evidenced by the desire of the men of Sodom to rape the two angels sent by God who were guests of Lot.  Thus, they conclude that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.  An entirely different understanding is reached by the theologians who applied the historical-critical approach.  Knowing that the culture of that time mandated that travelers be treated with hospitality because it could be fatal for travelers to spend the night outside in the desert without protection; and that raping a man in that culture was the ultimate way to humiliate him; they conclude that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality to the needy and abuse of strangers.

Which approach best explains the message of Sodom and Gomorrah?   Another way of understanding any given Bible text is to look at what is said elsewhere in the Bible about that event.  In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the evidence supports the historical-critical interpretation.  Consider, for example what is said in Ezekiel 16: 48-49:

“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:  she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

There are other texts in the Bible that discuss Sodom and Gomorrah, but none of them support the literalist conclusion that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.

There are several other texts in the Bible that have been used to condemn homosexuality.  Theologian and Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak explained what the Bible says about homosexuality in his book “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.  Helminiak concluded that the Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today:

“Only five texts surely refer to male-male sex.  Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.  All these texts are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself, and these five texts boil down to only three different issues.

First, Leviticus forbids homosexuality as a betrayal of Jewish identity, for supposedly male-male sex was a Caananite practice.  The Leviticus concern about male-mare sex is impurity, an offense against the Jewish religion, not violation of the inherent nature of sex.  Second, the letter to the Romans presupposes the teaching of the Jewish Law in Leviticus, and Romans mentions male-male sex as an instance of impurity.  However, Romans mentions it precisely to make the point that purity issues have no importance in Christ.  Finally, in the obscure term arsenokoitai, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy condemn abuses associated with homogenital activing in the First Century; exploitation and lust.

So the Bible  takes no direct stand on the morality of homogenital acts as such nor on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships.  Indeed, the Bible’s longest treatment of the matter, in Romans, suggests that in themselves homogenital acts have no ethical significance whatsoever.  However, understood in the historical context, the teaching of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy makes this clear; abusive forms of male-male sex–and of male-female sex–must be avoided.”

I reject the claim that gay marriage would re-define marriage; that marriage has always involved on man and one woman.  I see marriage as an evolving institution.  Today’s marriage, where two people fall in love and choose to spend the rest of their lives together, hasn’t always been characteristic of marriage.  In the past, some marriages involved polygamy.  Marriages were arranged–and love had nothing to do with those two people coming together.  Prospecitve grooms had to offer the father of the pride an acceptable dowry to compensate him for the loss of that article of property.  We are hung up on labeling people and treating them according to the label we stick on them.  At the bottom line don’t we have two people falling in love and joining together in marriage?  Why do those two people have to be male and female?  Why can’t those two people be be two males or two females?  Is it because “we’ve always done it that way”?  Well, we haven’t always done it that way.  Some marriages involved a man coming together with several women.  And in the past marriage had nothing to do with love and was little more than a business transaction.

It’s said that marriage is a sacred institution.  If you do a little rsearch on the history of marriage you learn that in the early days of Christianity marriage had no religious significance.  Marriage was considered a civil arrangement.  That religious significance didn’t come until the 12th Century when the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament.  Soon divorce, which had been allowed, was prohibited.

Clearly, marriage as we know it today, is not the same institution it has been in the past.  It has changed.  It has evolved.  And the next step in its evolution should be marriage equality.

I reject the claim that same-sex marriage will harm traditional marriage.  Traditional marriage is harming itself.  Look at the divorce statistics.  According to www.divorcerate.org  41% of all marriages end in divorce—and it gets worse in multiple marriage cases.  The statistics show that 60% of all second marriages end in divorce, and 73% of all third marriages end in divorce.  Before quaking in fear at the prospect of gay marriage, the heterosexuals who oppose marriage equality need to get their own house in order.

I believe it may be instructive to look at what’s happened with other countries that have allowed gay marriage.  The countries that allow gay marriage are the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina, with France poised to allow gay marriage this summer.  Are those countries all going to hell in a handbasket because they allow gay men and lesbians to marry?  Is the Canadian society falling to pieces because they allow gays and lesbians to marry?

I reject the claim that gay marriage is harmful to the children in families headed by gay men or lesbians.  While there may be outliers, professions organizations that claim their research proves that gay marriage is harmful to the children in those families.  It is the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of educational, social service, and mental health professional organizations that the children in families headed by lesbians and gay men are not adversely affected by their living situation.  Consider these examples:

An article in the Pediatric Journal titled “Children In Same-Sex Households” concluded that “There is extensive research documenting that there is no causal relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral development.”

A report by the American Psychiatric Association titled “Lesbian and Gay Parenting” found that “Fears about children of lesbian or gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.”

In addition a booklet was made available to school employees with the purpose of educating them about efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy and religious ministries.  The booklet, titled “Just The Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth” was  endorsed by:

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Association of School Administrators

American Counseling Association

American Federation of Teachers

American Psychological Association

American School Counselor Association

American School Health Association

Interfaith Alliance Foundation

National Association of School Psychologists

National Association of Secondary School Principals

National Association of Social Workers

National Education Association

School Social Work Association of America

What it comes down to is this:  It is the concensus of the social science research that parental sexual orientation has no effect on how the children develop.  What’s important is the quality of the relationship between parents and their children.  If the relationship is good, the children in families headed by same-sex parents will develop normally.  If the parent-child relationship is not good, there may be problems in the children’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral development.  That is true of heterosexual parent families and same-sex parent families alike.  And, having a gay or lesbian parent does not increase the liklihood of a child  being gay or lesbian.

I reject the claim that  homosexuality is just a sexual preference or a lifestyle choice.  Science has spoken.  Homosexuality is a sexual orientation which is defined as  an inclination toward  or preference for sexual activity with members of one’s own sex, the  opposite sex, or both sexes.  There are three components to sexual orientation; attraction, behavior, and identity (one’s view of themself as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual).  Sexual orientation is not something we choose; we are simply born with that sexual orientation.  If you doubt that, if you believe we choose whether or not to be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, then stop and think; how old were you when you decided to be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual?  And what were the factors that went into your decision?   It is simply not true that homosexuals and bisexuals choose to be that way and the rest of us are just born heterosexuals.

Some people believe that because science hasn’t identified a “gay gene” it proves that homosexuality is just a sexual preference or lifestyle choice.  They are not looking at the big picture.  Genetics is just one possible reason some of us are homosexual or lesbian.  There could be another possible biologican reason for a homosexual orientation.  An intriguing possibility was explored by Dr. Gunther Doerner, an East German scientist.  Dr. Doerner, building on previous research on animal subjects, found that he could create rats who engaged in same-sex sexual activity by manipulating the level of testosterone at critical periods of gestation in female rats.  It’s very possible that homosexualtiy in human beings is a result of changes in sexual hormone levels during critical development stages in pregnancy.

I reject the claim that people can be “cured” of homosexuality.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Change or Reparative therapies do not work–and in fact can cause mental and emotional damage to the people who go through those therapies.  There’s a page on these therapies on the website for the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, which looked at the cure rate for several programs conducting Reparative therapy and found that the cure rate for Exodus International was 0.4% while Shroedler and Shidlo produced and cure rate of 0.5% and Spitzer’s program cured a microscopic 0.04% of the people who went through the program.  In other words, those programs had a rate of failure of more than 99.5%.   How much confidence would you have in a therapy that failed more than 99.5%  of the time.

I believe that marriage equality would not harm traditional marriage or the children in households headed by lesbian or gay parents.

I believe that marriage equality is a social justice issue.  Catholic social justice teaching requires that all people be treated with human dignity, regardless of their state in life or their beliefs.  All people must be treated fairly.  Is it fair that people can be in legally recognized marriages in their state but be denied all of the 1,100  benefits given to married couples by the federal government?  Is it fair that those people, if they’re wealthy, get a tax bill from the federal government for inheritance taxes when their spouse dies?  There’s nothing just about the current situation involving gay marriage.

I believe that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection and benefits of the law under the 14th Amendment.  Here’s the first section of that amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the provisions of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There are rights and benefits given to heterosexual couples by the state and federal governments.  If heterosexual married couples receive those benefits, legally married homosexual couples must also receive those benefits and rights if the 14th Amendment is to mean anything.

I believe that marriage equality is the right thing to do, so claims that we are moving too fast on this issue are without merit.  If the Supreme Court believes that DOMA is an unconstitutional infringement on legally married gay and lesbian couples, there is simply no reason to delay ruling that it is unconstitutional.  The constitutionality of the law should be the only consideration.  Period.

Leave Comments →

America Without Social Security

31st March 2013 by under Blog, Contributors, Mark Luxford     

In my last post I showed how Congress and President Obama are simply paying lip service to the need to preserve Social Security and Medicare.  Now, let’s take a look at what America would look like if there was no Social Security.

The March 2013 issue of the AARP Bulletin contains a chart that looks at the percentage of Social Security recipients 65 and older living in poverty today compared with the percentage of recipients who would live in poverty without the benefit of Social Security.  The chart was prepared using data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and looked at all 50 states and the District of Columbia.   The 2011 threshold  for poverty was $10,788  for individuals and $13,596 for couples.

According to the data, in this country an average of 8.7% of America’s Social Security recipients are living in poverty.  The states with the lowest percentage of Social Security recipients living in poverty are Wisconsin (5.1%), Iowa (5.6%), Connecticut (6.2%), New Hampshire (6.5%) and Wyoming (6.6%).   The states with the highest percentage of their Social Security recipients living in poverty were Georgia and Arkansas at 11.9%, Mississippi at 12.5%, Louisiana at an even 15%, with the District of Columbia topping the list at 15.6%.  Michigan is in a 12th place tie with Massachusetts, with 7.4% of our Social Security recipients living in poverty.

Now, what happens if Social Security goes bye-bye?   The average percentage of people 65 and older living in poverty goes from 8.7% to 44.7%.  The states with the lowest percentage of people 65 and over living in poverty would be Hawaii at 33.6%, the District of Columbia at 34.9%, Alaska comes in at 36.8%, followed by Colorado at 36.9% and Connecticut at 37.6%.  The states with the dubious distinction of seeing the largest percentage of their senior citizens living in poverty would be West Virginia with 51.8%, South Carolina at 51.9%, Georgia with 52.8%, Tennessee and Mississippi with 54.8% and topping the list,…Arkansas at 55%.  Michigan would be squarely in the middle of the pack at 47.6%.

Another way Of looking at what America would look like with no Social Security is to look at the change between the two numbers for each state and DC.  Nationwide, the number of people 65 and over who are living in poverty would increase an average of 536%.   The District of Columbia would see the smallest increase, 223%  more senior citizens living in poverty.  The other members of the bottom five are Louisiana (335%),  Alaska (353%), Texas (386%), and New York (392%).  The states with the largest increase in the number of senior citizens who would be living in poverty are Missouri (685%), New Hampshire (693), Kansas (700%),  Wisconsin (835%) and Iowa, with 844% more impoverished senior citizens.  Here in Michigan we would see 643% more people 65 and older living in poverty.

Keep in mind, this data concerns only the number of people 65 and older receiving Social Security retirement benefits.  It does not include those who retire early at 62 or those who receive Social Security disability benefits.

In my opinion, this data underscores the need for President Obama and Congress to finally get serious about saving Social Security and Medicare.  Their proposals involve cutting benefits to one degree or another.  Of all the ideas that have come forth, one one idea is sure to save Social Security and Medicare—the legislation sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders in the last Congressional session which would have lifted the cap on the amount of income taxed for Social Security.  The Congressional Budget Office said that Sanders bill, if approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, would save Social Security for the next 74 years, the furthest into the future the actuarial tables can forecast.

The stated goal of Social Security was to provide economic security for this country’s retirees.  The economic security of our retirees is not achieved by cutting benefits.  It will not be achieved by anything President Obama and Congress have proposed so far.

tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave Comments →

President and Congress Paying Lip-Service to Saving Social Security & Medicare

1st March 2013 by under Mark Luxford     

President Obama and the Republicans in Congress have been and will continue to be engaged in a wrestling match over our national debt.  Our national leaders have been wrongly tying entitlement reform to the national debt issue.  The Republicans, in particular, seem to have conveniently forgotten what their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, said in a 1984 presidential debate in Louisville, Kentucky:

“Social Security has nothing to do with the budget…” ~ Ronald Reagan

Reagan was absolutely right.  Social Security and Medicare are funded through a payroll tax.  They are not a line item in the federal budget.  In fact, for years presidential administrations of both parties have raided the Social Security fund and used the money to mask  the actual size of the federal budget deficit, replacing the funds with IOU’s in the form of Treasury bonds.

As Obama and the Democrats and the Congressional Republicans have proposed entitlement reform, I’ve been struck by their apparent lack of understanding of the financial difficulties the average American faces.  Here are a few examples:

*The financial advisory firm Hello-Wallet recently found that 1 in 4 households will withdraw some or all of their retirement funds to meet their current daily living expenses.

*AARP reports that for the first time in history people over 50 now have accumulated more credit card debt than those under 50.

*A 2010 report from the Center For Economic Policy and Research found that “Employment in physically demanding jobs or jobs with difficult working conditions is a major cause of early labor market exit among older workers…”  This is an important factor to consider because physically demanding labor can result in the worker in their mid to late 50′s finding that they are no longer physically able to handle the demands of their job.  Those workers may find themselves out of a job, physically unable to do many of the jobs that are out there, and too young to retire with full Social Security benefits.  The earliest a person can retire is 62.  If they retire at that age they receive a reduced benefit level for the rest of their life.  Their benefit level does not increase when they reach the normal retirement age.

The common thread running through most of the ideas that both parties have put forth to save Social Security and Medicare is that they involve cutting benefits to beneficiaries.  Raising the retirement age has widespread support on Capitol Hill, and that action certainly results in less benefits for retirees over the course of their lifetime.  I’ll give some credit to President Obama.  His Affordable Care Act, for instance, ended the whopping over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans, and specifically bars the board that has been given the duty of coming up with says to cut fraud and waste from Medicare from including in their recommendations to Congress any measures that would reduce benefits to beneficiaries.  But Obama has endorsed using the Chained CPI formula for determining Cost Of Living Allowances for Social Security beneficiaries.  The Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration has determined that use of that formula would result in an annual cut of 0.3-percentage points for the average recipient.  That works out to about $130 less per year for that average recipient.  While that may not seem like much, that money could be very important to the retiree living on a fixed income and seeing more and more of their money eaten up by ever-increasing food, utility, fuel, and medication costs.

For their part, the Republicans have long had a goal of dismantling the social safety net, including Social Security and Medicare.  They oppose any reform that involves bringing in more revenue.  They have a laser-like focus on the meme that reducing spending in Social Security and Medicare as the only way to save those programs.  And sadly, there are many Democrats who share that point of view.  What Obama and Congress don’t want you to know is that legislation was introduced in the last session of Congress which the Congressional Budget Office found that, if enacted it would save Social Security for the next 75 years—the furthest into the future that the actuarial tables are able to project.  It’s possible that Social Security and Medicare would be saved for years beyond that 75 year projection.  That legislation, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont, never advanced to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  Obama did not press for Sanders’ bill to be passed.  Democratic leaders in the House and Senate did nothing to advance the passage of the legislation, and the Republicans were adamantly opposed to it.  With their actions President Obama and Congress proved that they are interested in paying lip-service to saving Social Security and Medicare; they are not really interested in doing what needs to be done to actually save them without hurting millions of Americans.

What that legislation introduced by Sen. Sanders would have done was eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.  That cap on Social Security taxes is set at $113,700 for 2013; meaning that the Social Security (FICA) taxes are taken out on the first $113,700  of a person’s salary or wages.  Any wages or salary above that would not be taxed for Social Security.   No matter how much your wages are, you only pay the FICA on the first $113,700 of your wages.

If Sanders’ legislation had been passed and signed into law both Social Security and Medicare would be saved, with no benefit cuts to beneficiaries.  The Social Security tax is set at 7.65%.  Of that, 1.45% of that rate provides the funding for Medicare.   Here’s how the current system works for the person with $1-million in salary or wages.  They pay the FICA tax on their first $113,700 or a total of $8698.   Under Sanders’ proposal they would pay the FICA rate on their entire $1-million salary and would pay $76,500.  That means the current system is saving that average millionaire $67,802 in FICA taxes each year.  Their savings is more than 7-times the amount they pay.

A 2012 report by the Boston Consulting Group found that there are 5.1-million  households reporting income over $1-million.  That income may not be totally wages; there may be other sources of income such as property, stocks and bonds etc. which would be taxed at different rates and not subject to FICA.  But for illustrative purposes, let’s say that of that group there are 1.5-million households with salary or wages of $1-million.  How much money would they bring to Social Security and Medicare under Sanders’ legislation.  Crunching the numbers shows that those 1.5-million millionaires would bring over $1.14-trillion annually to Social Security and Medicare.

This year Social Security will pay out $820-billion and Medicare is projected to pay out $523-billion with a grand total of $1.343-trillion.  That money from those millionaires would nearly pay the total expenditure.  In 2011 some 142,823,000 individual tax returns were filed with the IRS.  That leaves about 141,323,000 to add their FICA payments.  Clearly, eliminating the earnings cap would save Social Security and Medicare for many generations to come.

Think of the kind of country we could have if Sanders’ approach was adopted by President Obama and Congress.  In his book, “Rebooting The American Dream” Thom Hartmann advocated that instead of raising the retirement age, we drop it to 55 and increase the benefits between 10 and 20-percent.   That would allow people to retire and enjoy full benefits before their bodies break down instead of working until the day they die.   Those retirees would be able to live modestly on Social Security instead of struggling to make ends meet.  By dropping the retirement age we would create more job openings for younger workers;  workers who would be able to pay off their student loans and spur the economy by buying houses, cars, and whatever grownup toys they desire.

Instead, we have an America where our president and Congress are united in their belief that the only way to save Social Security and Medicare is to enact measures that would reduce benefits to the people who have earned their benefits from those programs.  They may differ in some approaches and share the same vision in others, but they’ve both turned a blind eye to the one approach the CBO has said would save both programs for far into the future without cutting benefits in any way.

tags: , , , , , ,

Leave Comments →

Drone Strikes: Defensible Action Or Indefensible Abuse Of Power

21st February 2013 by under Blog, Contributors, Mark Luxford, War     

On Feb. 13, 2013 NB C News reported that investigative reporter Michael Isikoff had obtained a classified memo which laid out the outlines of the Obama administration’s use of drones to kill high value Islamic terrorist targets.  A particularly thorny issue is the use of the drones to kill American citizens who had joined the terrorist groups.  To date the drones have been used to kill 3 American terrorists.  In this post I will discuss some relevant facts that you may not be aware of and guide you to your own decision on this issue.  We’ll start out with a discussion of the two most important factors involved in this issue; the Obama administration’s justification for the use of the drones and their authority to use the drones  this way.

Justification For The Use Of Drones

The memo justified the use of the drones on a self-defense basis.  It is an accepted legal concept that the use of lethal force is justified when the subject is seen as presenting the threat of imminent harm to others.  For example, there’s the policeman who shoots and kills the robber who is about to shoot the person he is holding up.  The memo reveals that to reach this premise the Obama administration re-defined the word “imminent”.   In common usage “imminent” means something that is about to happen.  To suit their purposes the Obama administration re-defined ”imminent” as something that can reasonably be expected to happen in the future.  Their thinking is that this individual is an Islamist terrorist.  Terrorists are involved in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks against this country and its people, so it can reasonably be expected that this individual will plan or take part in a terrorist attack in the future, and he needs to be taken out.

Authority To Take The Action

The Obama administration contends that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved by Congress and signed into law on September 18. 2001—one week after the 9/11 attacks on this country, gives them the authority to use the drones in this way.  The AUMF gives the president wide discretion in bringing to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and preventing future terrorist attacks against this country:

“Section 2.  AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a). IN GENERAL—That the president is authorized to use all necessary and and appropriate forces against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or guided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b). WAR POWERS REQUIREMENTS–

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute the specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.  Nothing in this resolution super-cedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

A word about those sections of the War Powers Resolution addressed in the AUMF.  Section 5(b) says that the president must report the use of military forces to Congress and withdraw those forces in 60 days unless certain conditions are present.  The first such condition mentioned is that Congress either declared war or authorized the action.

Section 8(a)(1) says that any authorizations to use United States Armed Forces in hostilities or potentially hostile situations must state that it is intended to constitute the specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.  The purpose of the resolution was to curtail the ability of the president to use our armed forces abroad in hostilities or potentially hostile situations without a declaration of war or other Congressional authorization, yet provide enough flexibility to respond in attacks or other emergencies.  Not surprisingly, the War Powers Resolution has been considered unconstitutional by Nixon and every president that has followed him, believing that the resolution infringed on their authority as commander-in-chief.

It’s also necessary to discuss an important aspect of the AUMF.  That measure gives the president unprecedented discretion in fighting terrorism and keeping us safe from attack.  Previous authorizations specifically cited the persons, organizations, or nations with whom hostilities have begun or are likely and who are the reason for the requested authorization.  This AUMF leaves the president free to use military force against any person, organization, or nation they believe presents a terrorist threat to this country, and places no specific limits on the force the president is authorized to use.

Discussion

The history of the War Powers Resolution clearly shows the tension that has traditionally existed between Congress and the president on the issue of war powers.  The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war and to fund the war machine, and gives the president the authority to command the armed forces.  The complaint of Congress is that the presidents have infringed on their authority to declare war by inserting our troops in hostile or potentially hostile situations without their approval.  For their part, the presidents have complained that the War Powers Resolution infringes on their authority as commander-in-chief to direct our armed forces.

It’s also important to remember that this use of drones to kill high value Islamic terrorist targets did not begin with President Obama.  His predecessor, President Bush, began the practice of using drones in this manner; but the practice was greatly accelerated by President Obama, who has used the drones to continue to take the fight to the terrorists as we’ve continued to draw down the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Bush did not use the drones to kill any Americans who have joined the terrorists.  All 3 American Islamic terrorists killed through drone attacks died on Obama’s orders following a thorough review of the facts and a determination that those individuals pose a very serious threat to this country and capturing them was not feasible.

Those who are critical of Obama’s use of drones to kill Americans say he is acting as judge, jury, and executioner and denying them of due process of law.  The thing we must decide is what does “due process of law” mean in the case of Islamic terrorists?  I’m taking another class in “Hot Topics In Constitutional Law” at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Aquinas College presented by Devin Schindler, a constitutional law instructor at the Cooley Law School in Grand Rapids.  In our first session   Mr. Schindler said that the issue of Islamic terrorism has caused a whole new body of law to arise because neither criminal law nor military law has proven suitable in our efforts to bring the terrorists to justice.  The use of drones to take out high value Islamic terrorist targets is part of that new body of law that is emerging.

In my religious tradition, the Catholic Church, we do an examination of conscience before going to confession and receiving the Sacrament of Penance.  When I attended my parish’s elementary school we often had our teachers prepare us for confession by asking us questions to think about.  To assist you in drawing your own conclusions about this drone issue, I’m going to pose some questions to you:

Bush re-defined “torture” to allow the use of water-boarding.  Obama re-defined “imminent” to justify using drone strikes to kill Americans who have joined the terrorists.  Is there any difference between the two acts?

It is argued that Bush acted as judge and jury by trampling on the constitutional rights of people targeted in his warrant-less wiretapping program or labeling people as enemy combatants and shipping them to Gitmo or some “dark prison” overseas.  It is argued that Obama is acting as judge, jury, and executioner in using drone strikes to kill American citizens and deprive them of their due process of law.  Are the actions of one more egregious than the other?

Which are the operative words in the case of an American Islamic terrorist; “American” or “Islamic terrorist”?

Do you believe that neither criminal law nor military law are suitable for dealing with terrorists.

If terrorism law is an emerging body of law does the Obama administration drone program deprive American Islamic terrorists of their due process of law when it is conducted under terrorism law?

Should Congress have more say-so in carrying out the war on terrorism, or should they let the president do what he believes he needs to do to keep this country safe from terrorist attacks?

Do you believe that the drone strikes are “necessary and appropriate” under the AUMF, including when used against American citizens who have joined the Islamic terrorists?

The War Powers Resolution concerns the use of American Armed Forces in hostile or potentially hostile situations.  Are unmanned drones, operated from thousands of miles away “American Armed Forces” and thus subject to the provisions of the War Powers Resolution?

If you believe that Obama is in the wrong in using drone strikes to kill American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, what other viable options are there for Obama to use in dealing with people who have made that choice and are ready to attack this country and its people?

You have the information and the questions to assist you in considering this issue.  I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

 

Leave Comments →

A Conversation About Islam

14th November 2012 by under Blog, Mark Luxford, Religion     

Q. I tell you, one thing I’ve never understood about Islam is why do they become so angry about things like cartoons about the prophet Muhammad or some stupid video on the Internet.  Why do such things cause so many of them to take to the streets in demonstrations?

A. Well, there’s one thing about the Muslims who take to the streets to protest insults to their religion that people just don’t understand.  They have a completely different self-identity about their religion and their country from what we have.  We see ourselves as being Americans first and Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists or whatever second. Those  Muslims see themselves as Muslims first and Egyptians or Saudi’s or whatever second.  I think that says something about the importance of their religions in their lives.  Now, that’s not to say that our self-identity is best or theirs is best.  We just have different self-identities.    Also, Muslims  see Muhammad as being the greatest prophet and due the utmost respect.  It’s against their faith to produce an image of Muhammad, and an article of their faith that they say “Peace be upon him” every time they say Muhammad’s name.

Q. OK, I get it.  Islam is very important to them.  But don’t you think they’re going overboard to take to the streets to demonstrate against what they see as insults to them?

A. No, I really don’t.  It’s just human nature to take umbrage when we’re insulted.  I’m old enough to remember what happened during the Vietnam War.  We had many people who saw themselves as good, patriotic Americans threaten to kick the asses of the “hippies” they saw protesting the war.  They believed something they treasured, this country, was being insulted so they felt like kicking some asses or actually went out there and kicked some.  Maybe some Muslims take their reaction to insults to Muhammad or their religion to a whole different level, but it’s really no different from the reactions of those “patriotic” Americans during the Vietnam War era.  They saw something they treasured being insulted and had a violent reaction.  Same thing some Muslims do.

Q. Let’s talk about Muslims and the way they see other religions like. Jews and Christians. Don’t they see us as “unbelievers” or “infidels”?

A. No.  It’s true that the Qu’ran talks about “unbelievers” and the need to fight them, but the “unbelievers”  they’re talking about are the pagans who were their neighbors, who rejected Muhammad and his message and made war against Muhammad and his followers.  That’s who the Qu’ran was referring to, not Christians and Jews.  Muslims believe that God sent his children four scriptures:  the Torah, the Book of Psalms, the Gospel, and the Qu’ran.  You can pick up a copy of the Qu’ran and you’ll find that Islam sees many of the important figures in the Old and New Testaments as prophets; including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, John, Elias, and Jesus.  You’ll also see many of the stories we see in our scriptures, including Moses and the burning bush, Noah and the flood, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, David and Goliath, and the annunciation of Jesus, when Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would give birth to Jesus.  Islam  does not accept the Trinity or believe in Jesus’ position as the Son of God, but if you look into Islam you’ll find a lot of what we Jews and Christians believe.

Q. You say there’s a lot of the Judeo-Christian stories in Islam, but isn’t it true that Muslims worship a different God from the one Jews and Christians worship?  Don’t they worship  Allah?

A. Allah is simply Islam’s name for God.  The Jewish and Christian traditions have also had their names for God like “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”.  It’s a matter of the same God, different names.  Consider for a minute what the Qu’ran says in Surah 5, 69:

“Those who believe (in the Qu’ran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Sabians and Christians–any who believe in Allah and the Last Days, and work righteousness, in them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

Q. Assuming that what you say is true, isn’t Islam a violent religion?  What about their belief in jihad?

A. The meaning many people who do not follow Islam have for jihad, as a violent struggle to advance Islam, is nothing but a distortion of the traditional Islamic meaning of it as being a personal struggle to follow their faith.  Islamic fundamentalists have hijacked the traditional meaning and twisted it into an entirely different meaning from what Islam has traditionally taught.  I don’t know of any Christian who would like to see their faith represented by the Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.  What Phelps teaches as Christianity is no more representative of what Christianity is than what those Islamic fundamentalists teach about jihad being representative of Islam.

Q. What about Islam’s view of women?  Aren’t they seen as second-class citizens, submissive to men?

A. Actually, if you look into the Qu’ran and what it says about women you’ll see that Islam gives women the right to education, the right to accept and reject marriage proposals, freedom of expression, the right to contract, engage in enterprise, earn, and possess independently, as well as a share of inheritance that cannot be taken away by anyone.  We in the West may see how women are mistreated in some Islamic societies, but that mistreatment is just like jihad–a distortion of what the Qu’ran teaches about women and their role in society.

Q. What are your thoughts on Sharia law, and the threat it poses to our way of life?

A. What threat?  Sharia law is the legal and moral code of Islam; religious principles which provide guidance on religion, politics, economics, banking, business, law, and other aspects of Muslim life.  Religious laws like Sharia bind the followers of that religion.  The First Amendment of the Constitution bars the government from adopting religious law as binding legal authority; but religious law can apply in certain legal situations.  Parties to private agreements or civil transactions may agree that religious law would apply to the terms of the agreement or breach of an agreement.  But Sharia law would be accepted only if both parties agreed to its use.  If both parties agreed to its use rather than take the dispute to civil courts,  our courts have accepted the decision by the religious court.  It’s just an option people of the same faith can use to settle disputes.  Sharia law is used in this country to settle disputes, just as Jewish courts have ruled in such cases, and canon law is used by Christian faiths like Catholicism to settle things like the annulment of marriages.  A stereotypical picture of Sharia law is out there involving things like cutting off the hand of a thief or stoning a woman for adultery.  We will never see Sharia law used in this country in such a way.  It will always be used the way Jewish religious law or Christian religious law  are used–as a means for believers to settle their disputes.  That’s the way religious law is used in this country .  Religious laws are not general laws binding on everyone.  They’re binding only on the believers who turn to their religion’s courts to settle disputes.

Q. I know you’re a member of the Catholic Church.  How is it that you know so much about Islam?

A. Well, spiritually I’m Catholic,   but philosophically I’m a seeker.  When I come across an issue I’m interested in I try to learn everything I can about it so I can understand the truth about that issue or situation.  I’m not about to convert to Islam.  I just sought to understand Islam.

 

 

Leave Comments →

Mitt Romney…Behind The Mask

30th October 2012 by under Blog, Elections, Mark Luxford, Politics     

Mitt Romney has based his campaign for the presidency on his record as a businessman.  I believe it’s crucial for anyone considering voting for him to take a close look at what he’s  done in business and what that may mean for a Romney presidency.  I will pass along to you informationI’ve come across considering his business record and leave it to you to decide what implications that may hold for a Romney presidency.

The reporting I’ve read on Romney’s business record leaves me to conclude that he is a modern version of the snake oil salesman from days of old who will say or do anything he believes will help him make a sale.  I also question whether Romney has a moral center and an understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.

Flip Flops

Granted, it’s a common practice to play to your base in the primary and moderate your positions, or move to the center, in the general election.  Typically, a candidate will make some movement to the middle while holding onto their values, their moral center.  Romney doesn’t just moderate, he completely reverses his position on issue after issue, taking a position on an issue 180-degrees away from the position he held previously.  This is an important consideration because we don’t know who we’ll see in the White House, “stern conservative” Mitt or “moderate” Mitt.

For instance, during the primaries Romney supported the Blount amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny for any reason their female employees contraceptive coverage in the company’s health insurance plan.  In the debates he said that all women have the right to contraception.  That’s an example of Romney taking a position on an issue that’s 180-degrees away from a previously held position.

Lack Of A Moral Center

Evidence of Romney’s lack of a moral center is the fact that he portrays himself as the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.  Romney was able to save those games only because he got the federal government to hand him $1.5-billion.  That’s more than the government gave the other 7 Olympics held in this country combined.  Romney rails against big government, but was oh so quick to turn to that government to save his ass and build his reputation.

Another example of Romney’s lack of a moral center came in 1992 when he was selected to save Bain Capital, which was in serious financial difficulty.  Romney had turned to 4 banks to borrow millions of dollars and the company was having trouble paying off those debts to the banks and the FDIC, which had assumed control over one of those banks, which had failed.  Romney’s solution was to threaten to use the cash they had on hand to pay millions of dollars in executive bonuses unless the banks and FDIC agreed to reduce the amount of debt owed to 35-cents on the dollar.  The banks and FDIC rejected that proposal.  Romney’s response was to pay some of the bonuses and threaten to pay more bonuses unless the banks and FDIC agreed to retire Bain’s debt at a price of up to 30-cents on the dollar.  In the end the banks and FDIC surrendered and Romney was able to save his company.  What Romney did was nothing short of blackmailing the FDIC and banks.  Where is the morality in blackmailing parties you owe money to in an effort to reduce your debt?

Executive Management Style

Romney and his supporters say Romney’s management skills indicates that he will be good chief executive of the federal government.  But does it really translate into success as a president?  A private equity executive who has just bought controlling interest in a company can tell people what to do and they’ll do it because that person has just become the boss.  That’s not how politics works.  Politics involves compromise  “Compromise” is not a word in the vocabulary of private equity executives.

There’s another important aspect of Romney’s management style that’s worth taking a look at.  When he led Bain Capital Romney would ignore most of the files that reached his desk, focusing on the few that showed the most promise and the least risk.   A president deals only with the hardest problems; problems with high stakes, high risk, and uncertain outcomes.  In other words, problems that Romney would leave for others to deal with at Bain.

Immoral Business Practices

During the years Romney led Bain Capital he was a frequent practitioner of the leveraged buyout.  So, how does a leveraged buyout work?  In a leveraged buyout Bain would target a struggling company with a good cash flow.  They would put down a small amount of their money, say 5%, and borrow the other 95% from an investment banker like Goldman Sachs.  They would use a portion of that money to pay millions of dollars in bonuses to the upper level executives of the targeted company to ensure that they would be on board with the buyout.  The catch is that the targeted company becomes responsible for paying back all of that borrowed money, in addition to paying Bain millions of dollars in management fees.  That double load of new debt can be too much for a company to bear–leading to bankruptcy.  Romney complains about saddling our children and grandchildren with the national debt, but employed a business model that allowed him to profit by saddling others with the debts he assumed.  Personal responsibility is a foundation of the conservative philosophy, yet conservatives have embraced this man who used an immoral business model that is the antithesis of the personal responsibility value they hold so dear.

Romney’s Ability To Care For Others

Romney supporters say he is very compassionate and cares about other people.  We’ve heard stories like how he shut down the office and led everyone to New York City to look for the missing daughter of a Bain employee.  But the thread running through the stories I’ve heard is that Romney’s caring and compassion are for people he knows; friends, associates, and members of his church.  Has that caring and compassion been extended to people he doesn’t know?  I’m sure the people at the Sensata plant in Freeport, IL would say “Hell No!”

If you haven’t heard about Sensata here’s the story.  Sensata is a high-tech company that makes sensory equipment for cars and trucks.  They’re a non-unionized company that has been very profitable.  But when Bain Capital acquired controlling interest in the company they told the employees that they would be closing the plant and moving its operations to China.  Very profitable wasn’t good enough for Bain.  They wanted even more profitable; a goal they could achieve by moving the company to a country where they could pay the workers as little as $1 an hour.  The employees have been fighting for their jobs and have tried to get Romney, who has a 51% controlling interest in Bain Capital, to come to Freeport and discuss the issue.  Romney was on a campaign bus tour that was scheduled to go through Freeport, so the employees invited him to make a stop in Freeport and meet with them.  In the end Romney’s bus went through Freeport, but he didn’t.  Romney got off the bus at the tour stop before Freeport and flew to the next stop on the trip.  He completely turned his back on the Sensata employees.

Now, Romney will claim that his holdings, including Bain Capital, are in a blind trust; so he has no control over their decisions.  But, in an interview with ABC News Romney said that blind trusts are sometimes not so blind.  Political ethics rules call for blind trusts to be administered by a financial institution.  Romney selected his long-time attorney to administer his blind trust.  So, are we really to believe that Romney has no input or control over the holdings in his blind trust?

Conclusion

When I look at Romney’s business record I see business practices that reflect a management style that may leave him ill-prepared to assume the presidency.  In addition, Romney employed a business model that I believe is nothing short of immoral.  I see a man who will say and do whatever he thinks will help him win the presidency.  I see a man lacking a moral center, a man who either doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong or doesn’t care whether he does the right thing or the wrong thing.  In short, I see a man who I wouldn’t vote for the office of dog-catcher, let alone the presidency.

But, it’s up to you to decide if Romney’s business record reflects someone you believe should be the President.  Ill just leave you with this one thought.  Romney was a successful businessman.  He made boatloads of money.  Is the fact that he made oodles and oodles of money as a businessman the only consideration?  Or is how he made that money and what that says about him also an important consideration?  How you answer those questions will determine whether you vote for Romney in the election.

Leave Comments →

A Better Way than the ‘Lesser of Two Evils’

11th October 2012 by under Blog, Elections, Mark Luxford, Politics     

When  people go the polls in November’s general election many of them will be faced with a dilemma at the top of the ballot. People have serious concerns about both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  They may decide who to vote for on the basis of which man would be the lesser of two evils.  Their options will be to vote for the man they believe will do the least harm to this country; vote for a third party candidate reflects their views but has no chance of winning; or simply not voting at all.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you which option you should exercise when you step up to cast your ballot and find yourself facing that dilemma.  I simply want you to know that there is a better way.

Here in America our most popular system of voting is the “Winner Takes All” system where the ballots are counted (hopefully) once and the person with the most votes is declared the winner.  I believe “Winner Takes All” is great for poker and bad for elections.  In other countries,  and indeed in some cities in this country, voting systems are used which give the voter more choices and third party candidates a genuine chance of being elected.

Instant Runoff Voting

The first such system is instant runoff voting.  In instant runoff voting each voter has one vote, but with that vote they can rank the candidates in order of choice:  1, 2, 3, and so on.  When the ballots are counted initially the first choices are counted.  If one of the candidates has a majority of first choices they’re elected.  But in instant runoff voting if no candidate has a majority of the votes another round of vote counting is done in which the ballots that had the last-place eliminated candidate as their top choice have that voter’s second choice counted.  If that round of vote counting does not produce a winner the process of eliminating the last-place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.

If we had instant runoff in place for the upcoming general election here’s how it would work in the presidential race.

A progressive might have Rocky Anderson at the top of the ballot with Dr. Jill Stein second and President Obama third.  If the initial count had no candidate with a majority of the votes and Rocky Anderson in last place, a second round of counting would be held in which that voter’s ballot would be counted for their second choice, Dr. Jill Stein.  If no candidate had a majority of the votes in that round, and Dr. Jill Stein was in last place, a third round of counting would be done with that ballot counted for Barack Obama.

Instant runoff voting (IRV) does not give extra votes to defeated candidates.  IRV is a one-person, one-vote system because in any given round of vote counting every person’s ballot can only be counted for one candidate.  Instant runoff voting can be compared to the two-round runoff system.  You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round.  If your top candidate survives that first round you keep supporting that candidate.  If they don’t you choose from among the remaining candidates.  Instant runoff voting’s constitutionality as a one-person, one-vote system has been upheld by both state and federal courts.

There are some advantages that come with instant runoff voting which must be noted.  First, instant runoff voting avoids third party candidates spoiling the election when splitting the majority vote.  For instance, in the 2000 presidential election some people believe that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election because he took away votes from people, especially in Florida, who may have gone for Gore.  Such spoiling of election results do not happen in IRV elections.

IRV can increase voter turnout because it gives every voter an incentive to participate. Their vote would still count even if their top choice candidate is defeated and eliminated.  Instant runoff voting can also elevate the debate because all of the candidates have an incentive to focus on issues, to attract voters to their positions, and to form coalitions.  Negative campaigning and personal attacks are much less effective in IRV elections.

Instant runoff voting gives voters more power because they can exercise a range of choices.  This system of voting does not inherently advantage or disadvantage any political group, ideology, or interest groups.  All of the parties are on equal ground.

If you believe that instant runoff voting sounds hard for the voters, consider this; all the voter has to do is rank one or more candidates.  It’s like going out for an ice cream cone.  The store has sold out of your first choice, fudge ripple.  So, you go with your second choice, blue moon.  If they don’t have that you go with your third choice, butter pecan.  That’s all there is to it.

And, if you think this voting system sounds very foreign, consider this:  Instant runoff is used to elect candidates to city offices in cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Portland Maine.  Many major universities are using it for their student govenment elections, and the Academy of Motion Pictures uses it for awarding their awards such as Best Picture.

Instant runoff voting is great for electing one person to one office, but not so good for multi-seat elections such as congressional elections.  For those elections another system is much more beneficial.

Proportional Representation

The basic principle underlying proportional representation is that everyone should have the right to fair representation; all voters deserve representation and all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate,  There are a number of proportional representation models in use.  In order to achieve the basic principles of fairrepresentation , all PR models in use have certain basic characteristics.

First, they use multi-member districts.  Instead of electing one person to one district as we do in the U.S., several people are elected.  These multi-member districts may be relatively small, with three or four members, or they may be larger with ten or more members.  The second characteristic of all PR systems is that they divide the seats in these multi-member districts according to the proportion of votes received by the various parties running candidates.  So, if the candidates of a party win 40% of the votes in a ten member district, they receive four of the ten seats–or 40% of the seats.  And if another party wins 20% of the vote, they get two seats, and so on.

That’s the basics of proportional representation voting.  As I mentioned, there are different models for achieving fair representation.

In Party List Voting each party puts up a list of candidates equal to the number of seats in that district.  Independent candidates may also run, and are listed separately on the ballot; as if they were their own party.  On election day the voters indicate their preference for a particular party, and the parties are then allocated seats in proportion to their share of the vote. The order of the candidates on the party’s slate is set by the party.  The voters have no say in which of the party’s candidates receive the seats allocated to them.  Thus, if the Democrats are allocated two seats, the top two candidates on the Democrats’ list would get those seats.  That’s the Closed Party List system.

Most European democracies now use the Open List form of party list voting.  In this form a primary election is held in which the voters vote for the individual candidates of their choice.  The orde of the party’s slate is set in that primary, with the candidates with the most votes winning placement at the top of the list.  Candidates at the top of the list have a greater chance of being elected.  In the general election the voters select the candidate of their choice, with their vote counting for both the party and the candidate.  When the seSats are allocated to a given party the candidates within that party with the most votes win those seats.

Here in the United States we would not be able to employ a classical proportional representation model in our Congressional elections.  Article 1  Section 2 of the Constitution sets the number of members in the House of Representatives at one representative for every thirty thousand people in each district.  So, we would not be able to have the multi-member representatives for each district characteristic in our PR system.  But that doesn’t mean that proportional representation couldn’t be used for our Congressional elections; we’d just have to come up with our own model.

For instance, we could drop that first characteristic of multiple representatives for a district and use proportional representation for allocating seats for single representative districts.  Here’s what that might look like.

As a result of the 2010 census, Michigan has 15 seats in theHouse of Representatives.  Suppose general election results had the Democrats with 45% of the vote, the Republicans with 40%, the Green Party with 8% and the Libertarian Party with 7%.  The Democrats would be allocated 45% of the seats or 7 seats.  The Republicans would have 40% of the seats or 6 seats.  The Green Party and the Libertarian Party, with 8% and 7% respectively would each be allocated one seat in our Congressional delegation.  One seat each for the Greens and Libertarians may not sound like much, but if other states also used this model the number of minority party members holding seats in Congress would certainly reach significant levels.  The minority parties would see their ability to advance their agenda increase significantly by forming coalitions with majority party members.

If proportional representation seems to be more complex than you can wrap your brain around consider this:  when you turn on your television you don’t need to know the technological ins and outs of television broadcasting.  All you need to know is how to turn on the TV.  Similarly, with proportional representation it’s not necessary for you to understand how seats will be allocated for Congress based on which party you voted for.  You won’t be counting the votes and allocating the seats in Congress.  And you can be sure that the parties will make sure they get every seat they’re entitled to.

Conclusion

Under our current model of holding elections, the two major parties hold a near monopoly on governing power.  Third parties have very little chance of winning state and federal electoral offices and putting forth the views of their supporters.  Third party voters are left with the choice of tilting at windmills by voting for candidates who share their views but have little to no chance of being elected; or voting for someone who they have significant issues or differences of opinion with—the lesser of two evils.

Instant runoff voting would strengthen the voice of the voters.  Voters would have the power to express more choice; and their vote could play a role in determining a winner much longer than our current plurality based “Winner Takes All” system.  Proportional Representation would give third parties a genuine chance of winning seats in the legislature or congress; and advance an agenda that reflects the views of their supporters.

When you step up to cast your ballot on election day and prepare to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, remember, it doesn’t have to be that way.   By adopting instant runoff voting and proportional representation we can strengthen the voice and power of the voter and give third parties a legitimate chance of winning elections and expressing the views and will of their supporters.

tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave Comments →

How Far We’ve Fallen

20th September 2012 by under Mark Luxford     

How far we’ve fallen from the kind of people who laid the foundation to this great country we live in.  I’m sure that if the Founding Fathers are aware of what passes for governance and politics in this country they would be absolutely shocked and disappointed.

Many people have this image of the Founding Fathers as a group of courageous men unanimous in their beliefs of what needed to be done to lay the foundation for this country.  Courageous?  Certainly.  Unanimous in their beliefs?  Absolutely not.  They had different ideologies and beliefs.  But, they also had the willingness to set aside their ideologies and compromise where needed for the good of their young nation.

After all, this country was founded on the basis of compromise.  The Constitution is not our first guiding document for this country.  Before we had the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation; a document that gave power to the states with a weak central government.  Those circumstances led to a weak confederation and European powers England, France, and Spain licking their chops over the states they planned to divide among themselves when the United States collapsed.  Here on this side of the Atlantic our Founding Fathers saw the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation and began discussing a new document–the Constitution.  But, there arose a disagreement about whether to pass the Constitution immediately as it read and those who saw the need to strengthen the Constitution by including other provisions–what we know as the Bill of Rights.  Those favoring immediate passage told those who were holding out for the additional provisions that if they agreed to pass the Constitution as is, the provisions they wanted would be added as the first amendments to the Constitution.  That’s exactly what happened.  Both sides gave a little, and we ended up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because of compromise–that ten letter dirty word in today’s political world.

If you study the papers of the Founders and the history of the that time you learn that Hamilton and Adams were urbane businessmen who favored a strong central government.  At the other end of the spectrum was Jefferson, who was pro-states rights and a farmer by profession.  In the middle was our first President, George Washington, a politically moderate elder statesman.

There was an excellent editorial in the July/August issue of the AARP Bulletin titled “Try Greatness, Not Meanness” which forcefully made that point about how the Founding Fathers built this country:

“In life these four great men did not like one another.  Journals of that time are full of stories of their conniving and bitter rivalries.

Yet look at what they accomplished when they set aside their vanity, ideology and shortsightedness; a federation of distinct regional and economic interests bound by core principles and liberties upon which a carefully balanced national government could function and thrive.

We’re deep into a campaign season that amounts to a 21st -century explosion of vanity, ideology and shortsightedness.  Angry divisions with no interest in compromise have picked sides and launched a seemingly endless barrage of costly and inflammatory advertising.”

Look back a few years to the days following the 2008 election in which Barack Obama was elected president.  As was pointed out in an article in the September 3 issue of Time magazine titled “The Party Of No“, from the get-go the Republicans had no interest in working with Obama and the Democrats in Congress to solve the many serious  problems we faced ind the midst of the Great Recession; they were interested only in defeating him and making him a one-term president.  Who can forget Republican Senatre Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a remarkable moment of candor, stating that his number one priority in the coming congressional session was to make Barack Obama a one-term president.  Less well known, but equally telling, was a statement made by Congressman Pete Sessions in a presentation to a Republican leadership conference when he posed the question “If the purpose of the majority is to govern, what’s our purpose?”  Sessions answered his question by telling the audience, “The purpose of the minority is to become the majority…. That is the entire conference’s mission.”

Sessions couldn’t have been more wrong.  Yes, the Republicans were in the minority following the 2008 election, but they still had a role in governing this country.  Their role was to do as the Founders had done;  set aside what would benefit them politically and work with the Democrats to solve the serious problems this country faces.  They adopted the strategy of opposing anything and everything President Obama tried to do, even if it meant opposing something they had proposed or supported in the past.  The individual mandate in Obamacare was first proposed by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, and a major part of Mitt Romney’s health-care reform plan for Massachusetts; but when it came time to vote on Obamacare not a single Republican voted for it.  Republicans pound the drums for tax breaks for small businesses, but when Obama’s jobs bill, which included many tax breaks for small businesses, came up for consideration last year it was blocked by the Republicans.

The Republicans will accuse Obama of showing a lack of leadership, and claim that his plans have failed, but the fact is the Republicans have shown themselves to be a disloyal opposition that has refused to work with Obama and the Democrats in governing this country and solving the problems we face.  Congress cannot work when one party refuses to do the job they were sent to Washington to do and govern this country.  And please understand that when I call the Republicans a “disloyal opposition” I am not saying they are disloyal to the President.  What I’m saying is that they are being disloyal to this country by placing their political interests above the job they were sent to do—govern this country.

And to be fair, the hands of the Democrats are also dirty.  They have also been guilty of putting politics above responsible governing and doing what’s right.

Consider for example, what Nancy Pelosi said when she became Speaker of the House.  She said that investigations of the Bush administration for possible wrongdoing was “off the table”.  Now, there was fertile ground for investigations.  There was the redefinition of torture to permit waterboarding, and the warrantless surveillance  of American citizens in this country.  But, investigating possible wrongdoing in those things would not be done.  Why was investigating the Bush administration taken “off the table”?  Most likely because Pelosi knew that there would be a day the Republicans would be able to investigate a Democratic president.  She refused to do the right thing, investigate and let the chips fall where they may, because that could have political repercussions in the future.

An even more egregious example came recently when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to inject himself into the presidential campaign by refusing to act on a bill passed overwhelmingly by the House which dealt with auditing the Federal Reserve; choosing instead to claim that he had been in contact with someone who claimed to have proof that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for several years—a contention for which he offered no supporting evidence.

To understand why I consider this to be an egregious example of playing politics rather than governing it’s important to understand why that legislation was overwhelmingly supported in the House.  Let’s take a look at the Federal Reserve.

The Fed was created in 1913 in response to bank panics which had occurred.  Functions of the Federal Reserve include serving as the central bank of the U.S.; supervising and regulating banks as well as protecting the credit rights of consumers; managing the nation’s money supply; and maintaining the stability of the financial system.

There have been several criticisms of the Federal Reserve.  It has been alleged that the Fed caused the Great Depression and is partly responsible for the Great Recession of 2007; as well as that it is ineffective in its role of supervisor and regulator of the banking industry; that it has been responsible for booms and busts in the economy; and lacks transparency.

It is clear that the Federal Reserve impacts every one of us in many ways, yet according to the law that established the agency, it is not under the supervision of Congress or the White House.

There was legislation passed in 1978 which established that the Fed can be audited by the Government Accountability Office, but there are several restrictions as to what the GAO can audit in the Fed.  How sweet is that?  Wouldn’t it be great to be able to tell the IRS if they choose to audit your tax return that they can look into your business expenses but not your entertainment expenses or charitable contributions?  In essence, that’s exactly what the Fed has been able to do.

Given the important functions of the Federal Reserve, the criticisms which have  been made of the agency, and the fact that it is unsupervised by Congress and the White House, legislation which would allow a real audit of the Fed would seem to be a good thing.  But Harry Reid put more importance on playing politics than advancing this legislation which would have provided some transparency into that very secretive agency.

No one’s hands are clean in this.  Both parties are guilty of putting  politics over responsible governance.  Have we and the national leaders we send to represent us in our nation’s capitol  totally lost our way?  Are we incapable of learning from our past and seeing that the way things are today is not the way it has to be or should be?’

I will close this by quoting once again from that editorial in the AARP Bulletin:

“John Adams could just as easily been talking about today when he wrote in 1776 of his fears that the Continental Congress’ decisions would be dictated by ‘ noise, not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by ignorance, not learning; by contracted hearts, not large souls.’  His conclusion is appropriate today as it was  then:  ‘There must be decency and respect and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank or we are undone.  In a popular government this is our only way.’  Decency, respect and veneration produced compromise and a foundation that has endured for 236 years.  We are surrounded by noise, meanness and ignorance.  The measure for our leaders must be their ability to rediscover that proven formula of sense, greatness and learning.’

We should not; and indeed cannot settle for anything less.

tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave Comments →

Obamacare v Ryancare: Claims & Facts

1st September 2012 by under Blog, Contributors, Mark Luxford, Politics     

The 2012 presidential campaign is swinging into its final phase.  The Republicans just held their national convention, with the Democrats’ national convention just around the corner.  The selection of Paul Ryan by Mitt Romney to be his running mate has pushed entitlement programs to the forefront because of the controversial entitlement reforms proposed by Ryan in the Republicans’ proposed budget for the 2013 fiscal year. The last couple of weeks we’ve heard a lot of claims made by both camps about the plans of the other guy; so I believe it’s important to look into those claims and see where the truth lies.  I will identify the claim and then pass along what I learned about the truth (or lack thereof) of each claim.

Let’s start with Republican claims about Obamacare:
(more correctly titled: “The Affordable Healthcare Act”)

 Claim:  “The President’s new health care law is emblematic of the wrong way to address the problems with Medicare:  First, the overhaul raided Medicare by nearly $700 billion to fund a new, unsustainable, open-ended health care entitlement.  Second, it created a government panel of bureaucrats with the power to impose price controls on providers in ways that would result in rationed care and restricted access to treatments.”

Fact:  Let’s start with that alleged raiding of Medicare to pay for Obamacare.  The bulk of that $700 billion comes from the gradual ending of overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans.  Since Medicare Advantge plans were created Medicare has been paying the insurance companies that provide the plans over $1,000 more per beneficiary than the insurance companies have been spending on the medical care of those beneficiaries.  That extra money went straight into the pockets of the insurance companies.  To give you an idea of why that reform is necessary, consider this:  A 2009 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that there were 10.1 million people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2008.  Multiply 10.1 million b y 1,000 and you get 10.1 billion.  Medicare has been wasting more than $10.1 billion each year on Medicare Advantage plans with the insurance companies being the beneficiaries of that overpayment.  Yes, Obamacare does cut Medicare payments to medical providers and suppliers of medical goods, but the bulk of that  $700 billion comes from the gradual ending of those overpayments.

Now, as to the second point in that claim, yes, Obamacare did create a board whose mission is to develop proposals to deal with the growth of spending in Medicare, but the law does clearly spell out what those proposals can and cannot do.  Consider this provision on page 372 of Obamacare:

“(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendations to ration health care, raise revenues of Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A or 1839; increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments)or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”

Obamacare also spells out the things the panel must consider in producing their proposal.  According to the law, the panel must give priority to recommendations that extend the solvency of Medicare, as well as improve the health delivery system and outcomes; protect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to services, target sources of excessive spending; and consider the effects on Medicare beneficiaries of changes in payments to providers and suppliers.

Claim:  “There are two ways to control health care spending:  Give bureaucrats the power to decide which health care services seniors can use; as the Democrats’ health care law will do starting in 2014, or give patients more power to reward providers who deliver high-quality, low-cost care (and deny business to those who fail to produce quality, affordable care) as Republicans seek to do.”

Fact: I refer you back to page 372 of the Affordable Healthcare Ace and its prohibitions against rationing care to Medicare beneficiaries.  In addition, this claim by the Republicans ignores the fact that the act mandates that more health care services such as wellness preventative care be provided to Medicare beneficiaries; and includes measures which reward doctors who demonstrate good care for their patients.  What the Republicans seek to do is to let the market govern Medicare.  Market forces may work in most economic situations, but do we want the market to determine the quality of health care we receive?

Now, let’s take a look at the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare reform:

Claim:  The Romney/Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it.

Fact:  The Romney/Ryan plan for the reform of Medicare would leave the program untouched for those 55 years old and older.  For those under 55, beginning in 2023, they would be able to go to a newly created Medicare Exchange, where they would be given a choice of private plans alongside the traditional fee-for-service option of traditional Medicare.  The Romney/Ryan plan also features “premium support” or vouchers for seniors who need financial support to pay the premiums.  The Republicans tout the Medicare Exchange as providing seniors the opportunity to get their health insurance the same way members of Congress do; through a marketplace where they can find the best plan that meets their needs.  But, that’s where the similarity ends.

Analysts have pointed out that the Congressional plan has a funding mechanism in place that limits the amount of funding responsibility shared by the beneficiary.  Romney/Ryan has a funding mechanism that has no limits on the amount of funding responibility which would be shared by the beneficiaries.  So yes, the amount of the vouchers may increase as the cost of living increases; but if health care costs exceed the rate of inflation, seniors will be digging deeper and deeper into their pockets to pay their premiums.  From 2000 to 2011 the annual rate of inflation averaged 2.55%.  A graph in the Republicans’ 2013 fiscal budget showed that health care spending amounted to about 7% of the govenment spending as a share of the economy.  If seniors get a 2.55% increase in the amount of their voucher, but health care spending causes the amount of their premium to go up 5-6% how long do you think it would be before the average senior citizen has to dip into their savings to pay their health insurance premiums.  Another thing Romney/Ryan would do is place limits on the amount of awards in medical malpractice cases.  That’s been a Republican wet dream for years.  It must also be pointed out that the Romney/Ryan plan for reducing the cost of Medicare, as outlined in the 2013 fiscal year budget passed by the House of Representatives on a party line vote is so complex that the Congressional Budget office has been unable to score it, or determine how much it would cost.

Given the fact that the Romney/Ryan plan changes Medicare for those under 55 from a guaranteed benefit program to a premium support program that people would have to buy into, I believe it’s fair to say that Romney/Ryan does, in fact, change Medicare as we know it.

Now let’s turn to Medicaid, the program that provides medical care for those with low incomes.  The Obama administration has chosen to strengthen the program through measures in the Affordable Care Act.  The law invests new resources into fighting fraud in the program.  Obamacare also provides additional funding for states that seek to expand Medicaid to cover more of their residents; and established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will test new ways of delivering care to patients.  Those methods will improve the quality of care and reduce the rate of growth in health care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  Obamacare also increases the amount of Medicaid payments for primary care doctors in 2013 and 2014.  The law also authorizes waivers to allow states to submit their own plans for medical care to their needy residents.

The Romney/Ryan plan ‘s approach to Medicaid reform calls for the states to be given block grants which they would use to devise their own plans to meet the medical needs of their vulnerable residents.  Here’s how the plan is outlined in ” Path To Prosperity…The 2013 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution of the House Budget Committee”:

Claim: Repairing a Broken Medicaid System
Secure Medicaid benefits by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant indexed for inflation and population growth.  This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments.  States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria.  Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs that fit the needs of their unique populations.

Improve the health care safety net for low income Americans by giving states the ability to offer Medicaid beneficiaries more options and better access to care.  Medicaid recipients, like all Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions to them.

Constraining Medicaid’s growing cost trajectory by $820 billion over ten years, contributing to the long-term stability of the federal government’s fiscal condition and easing the largest and fastest growing burden on state budgets.”

I have a couple of issues with those points.  First of all, the choice of doctors available to Medicaid patients under the current program is not something that’s dictated by Washington.  The limited choice of providers that many people on Medicaid face is a result of the rate of funding given to providers.  Simply giving those block grants to the states does not guarantee that the states will provide better payments to providers, and thus result in more providers accepting Medicaid. Washington also does not dictate to Medicaid patients the health care decisions  they must make. 

I must also take issue with the claim that ”Constraining Medicaid ‘s growing cost trajectory by $810 billion over ten years… (bureaucratese for “Cutting Medicaid by $810 billion over ten years”) will strengthen the program.  Look at it this way, here in Michigan we have the Mackinaw Bridge connecting the upper peninsula and the lower peninsula.  If you take away every third bridge supporting column are you strengthening the bridge?  Would you want to drive your family across that bridge?  I believe it defies logic to believe that you strengthen a program by making huge cuts in the funding for that program.

[Editor's Note: There is also the concern that states receiving the block grants might divert those funds to pay for budget deficits or tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps our audience can help us find out if this is the case.]

There’s another claim being made about Obamacare that I must address.

Claim:  Obamacare imposes new regulations and requirements on small businesses that are harming their ability to provide health insurance for their employees.”

Fact:  Obamacare provided up to 4-million small businesses tax credits to help them provide health insurance for their employees.  In the first phase of this program, implemented in 2010, the tax credits allowed them to write off 35% of the employer contribution amount.  In the second phase, in 2014, that write off goes up to 50% of the employer contribution.

As I did the research for this post I was struck by how many of the core principles and provisions of Obamacare and the Romney/Ryan plan are contained in “Hillarycare”, the attempt by the Clinton administration to establish a program of universal health care in the United States.

Comparing Obamacare and Ryancare with Hillarycare

Consumer Choice
Hillarycare had as one of its core principles that each consumer should  have the opportunity to exercise choice about plans, providers, and treatments.  That’s a key principle for both Obamacare and the Romney/Ryan plan.

Sharing the Burden
The belief that the health care system should spread the costs and burden of care across the entire community is also a part of both plans.  Personal responsibility, or an individual mandate to obtain health insurance is a principle in Hillarycare as well as Obamacare and Romneycare in Massachussets. 

Resolution Process
Fair procedures for resolving disputes between beneficiaries and insurance companies was another key principle of Hillarycare that is also found in Obamacare.

Coverage Decisions
Hillarycare would have had the federal government establish what services would be provided in a comprehensive benefit package.  That’s also a part of Obamacare. Hillarycare covered family planning and pregnancy-related services, as does Obamacare (as we all know). 

Purchasing Alliances/Exchanges
Hillarycare would have established regional and corporate alliances through which people would have obtained their health insurance.  Those alliances are certainly comparable to the health exchanges which are a part of Obamacare and the Romney/Ryan plan. 

Under Hillarycare an alliance could not cross state lines, but two or more contiguous states could coordinate the operation of their alliances.  That’s also a provision in Obamacare.  Under Hillarycare the states would determine which insurance companies would be allowed to offer plans in their alliances.  That’s also a provision in Obamacare and the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare reform. 

Hillarycare would have allowed senior citizens  the option of remaining in in alliance plan when they turn 65 rather than sign up for Medicare.  That’s also a provision in the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare Reform.

Capping Employer Costs
Hillarycare had a provision which would have capped the amount an employer would have to pay in premiums for the insurance they offer their employees.  Obamacare has a similar provision. 

Privacy Protections
Hillarycare would have established national standards for the privacy protection of medical information.  That became a part of our health care system in the form of the Health Information Patient Privacy Act or HIPPA.

I guess good ideas are not the property of any political party.  It’s just that it can sometimes take 20 years oa so for those politicians to accept that maybe that idea by those other guys is a pretty good one after all.

If you want to understand the truth about the health care reform plans offered by Obama and the Romney/Ryan team  I urge you to download the Affordable Care Act and use the search tool to look up applicable provisions when questions arise.  Also go to www.healthcare.gov and look at the timeline for when key features of Obamacare will be implemented.  By all means, look up “Path To Prosperity…2013 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution House Budget Committee so you can see how the Republicans would change our social safety net.  Last, but not least, keep those fact-checking sites handy so you can check out the claims made by both campaigns about the other.

Knowledge is the key to making an educated, informed decision as to who you will support in the coming election.

tags: , , , , , , ,

One Comment →

It’s Better To Light One Candle Than To Curse The Darkness

13th August 2012 by under Blog, Contributors, Mark Luxford     

The title to this post is the motto of The Christophers, an organization dedicated to spreading the message that each and every one of us is valued because when we were born God gave us a job to do as part of His plan to make our world a better place in which to live.  Our job is ours alone.  It cannot be done by anyone else.  If we don’t do our job, the job goes undone.

Our job does not have to be a world-changing job.  We don’t have to change the world, we just have to change our little corner of the world for the better.  Each day when we wake up and start a new day we are given a multitude of opportunities to positively impact another person with a warm smile, a loving gesture, an act of kindness.  We just have to recognize the power we all have to change our little corner of the world for the better.

I’d like to give you a couple of examples of what I’m talking about.  One example concerns a young lady who was the subject of a TV news story I saw and the second example involves something that happened to me.  First, the young lady.

Early in the morning of July 30, a line of severe thunderstorms moved through the area north of Grand Rapids.  Damaging winds uprooted numerous trees in the Newaygo County town of White Cloud.  Many residents woke up to find a large tree on the ground in their yard, and wondered how they would be able to remove the tree.  One resident, a young mother named Tonya Eason, woke up, saw the damage, and decided to do something about it.  She got hold of a chainsaw and went from home to home offering to cut up the fallen trees.  When her neighbors offered to pay her for the work she did, she refused to take their money.  When a TV news crew caught up with her she was in a municipal park cutting up a fallen willow tree.  She told them she planned to make furniture from the wood of the tree that fell in the park and donate it to the town.  She’d never tried making wood furniture before, but she said she’d never used a chainsaw either before that day, so she believed she’d learn how to make furniture just as she learned to use a chainsaw.

Tonya used the opportunity she was presented that day to carry out an act of kindness which made her community a better place in which to live.  She didn’t change the world that day she picked up a chainsaw and went to her neighb ors offering to help take care of their fallen trees.  What she did was change her little corner of the world.

The experience that I had didn’t affect a community; it affected one little girl.

You see, I’m a member of a group of like-minded individuals who gather each Monday afternoon at one of the busier intersections in downtown Grand Rapids for a Peace Presence vigil in which we stand up for peace between peoples and nations.  On the day in question I was standing at the corner, smiling, holding my handmade “Peace Be With You” sign in my right hand with my left hand held high in the universal sign for peace, when my attention was drawn to one particular vehicle.

That vehicle was an SUV driven by a young man with a small child in the front seat next to him.  As the car pulled up to the stoplight the young man honked his horn and gave us a peace sign.  The child was looking at us and I saw her turn to her father and seemingly ask him about us and why he honked.  I don’t know what he told her but she looked at me, smiled, and waved to me.  When she waved to me I pointed my left hand, still in the form of a peace sign, at her as a gesture of acknowledgement and thanks.  She excitedly turned to her father, saying something to him before turning back to me and giving me the peace sign.  Again I pointed my peace sign at her and smiled.  The little girl turned and spoke to her father.   When she turned back to me she had a big smile on her face as she blew me a kiss.  With the biggest smile I could muster, I returned her favor and blew her a kiss.  With a great deal of apparent delight she turned and spoke to her father before the light turned green and the car pulled away.

Normally it’s my practice to change positions and focus on the traffic with the green light.   Normally I would have done just that.  But something told me to stay where I was and continue to focus on that car.  I did, and using only smiles and gestures was able to bring that little girl a few moments of happiness and excitement.  I benefited as well.  That day was a cold, dreary early winter day with a temperature in the mid-30′s and a light rain falling.   But in the afterglow of that interaction I suddenly wasn’t as wet and cold as I was before that car pulled up to that stoplight.

If you believe that the world is a cold, dark place you’ve got a choice to make.  You can either curse that cold and darkness or you can recognize the power that you have to be a candle; and bring some light to your little corner of the world.  Each of us has the power to positively impact the people around us and bring to them a moment of happiness, joy, or some other positive experience.

It really doesn’t take much of an effort to be that candle.  How hard is it to hold the door open for someone behind us?  How difficult is it to notice the name tag of the cashier at the grocery store or the bank teller and thank them by name for their service?  Is it really so hard to notice that the person behind you in the checkout lane has just a couple of items, and offer to let them go ahead of you?  Is it so difficult to call your elderly neighbor before you go to the grocery store and see if they’d like to ride along with you to the store?

What it comes down to is this:  You have the power to positively impact your little corner of the world.  You don’t have to bring about world peace, cure a disease, or create an organization to help the needy.  You don’t need to change the world.  If we all focused on changing our own little corner of the world for the better, the world would change for the better.

Don’t curse the darkness you see in the world around you, light a candle.  Be a candle.

Leave Comments →

Page 1 of 2:1 2 »