Author: Robert Barrimond

What We Have Seen and Heard, Part 1

Very soon a Black Catholic Bishop named Steib will be coming to speak to my parish about a pastoral letter on evangelization he co-authored titled “What We Have Seen and Heard” because my parish is considered to be one of the 800 or so in the country that are predominantly African American. We are reading the letter in preparation for the talk, discussing it and it’s implications. It’s a pretty long letter and I’ll be reflecting on it in the coming days.

Very soon a Black Catholic Bishop named Steib will be coming to speak to my parish about a pastoral letter on evangelization he co-authored titled “What We Have Seen and Heard.” Because my parish is considered to be one of the 800 or so in the country that are predominantly African American, we are reading the letter in preparation for his talk, discussing it and it’s implications amongst ourselves. It has been very fruitful so far and I have been reflecting on it daily. The letter is pretty long so this will be a serial post. Let’s begin.
Part 1 of the letter is titled “The Gifts We Share” and talks about our call as black people to share our gifts. It enumerates them all. The first is our culture.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Continue reading “What We Have Seen and Heard, Part 1”

Roger Keith Coleman – Ta-Nehisi Coates

Roger Keith Coleman – Ta-Nehisi Coates:

“I came up in an era where young boys thought nothing of killing each other over cheap Starter jackets. I don’t have any illusions about the criminal mind. I don’t believe in the essential goodness of man–which is exactly why I oppose the death penalty.”

(Via Ta-Nehisi Coates.)

Exactly.

Autopilot: McCaughey v. Stewart: A knife to a gunfight

Autopilot: McCaughey v. Stewart: A knife to a gunfight:

McCaughey is a health care advocate who launched the meme that has since become the ‘Death Panels’ talking point. She is an experienced PR messenger who appears before national audiences on radio and TV and never goes off script.  That she’s even talking to Stewart (who opposes her viewpoint and has an audience that will support him on virtually anything) illustrates her confidence in her ability to get her message across.
And she gets bludgeoned.

(Via Autopilot.)

A surgical breakdown of the infamous interview.

Skin Deep – Black Hair, Still Tangled in Politics – NYTimes.com

Skin Deep – Black Hair, Still Tangled in Politics – NYTimes.com:

“Anyone who thought such preconceptions were outdated would have been reminded otherwise by some negative reactions to the president’s 11-year-old daughter, Malia Obama, who wore her hair in twists while in Rome this summer. Commenters on the conservative blog Free Republic attacked her as unfit to represent America for stepping out unstraightened.”

(Via NY Times.)

So, a black child’s natural hair is unfit to represent America. Only straightening it to approximate Caucasian hair, would. Right. And why should black people trust this party? Ever?

On Liars

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org:

“A few readers alerted us to the fact that a state representative in North Carolina, Rep. Curtis Blackwood, published a version of the e-mail in a newsletter to constituents, telling them that while going through e-mail, he came across ‘some interesting information on the Democrats’ big health care bill, H.R. 3200. … While this is federal legislation and not state, the topic is of enough significance that I thought many of you would be interested in reading it.’ We’d refer Rep. Blackwood to our special report on viral messages titled, ‘That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.’
We can trace the origins of this collection of claims to a conservative blogger who issued his instant and mostly mistaken analyses as brief ‘tweets’ sent via Twitter as he was paging through the 1,017-page bill. The claims have been embraced as true and posted on hundreds of Web sites, and forwarded in the form of chain e-mails countless times. But there’s hardly any truth in them.”

(Via FactCheck.org.)

And this is why I said that the GOP leadership is behaving in a fashion devoid of morals, truth, and decency. A congressman, with access to the actual bill and the staff to read it, sends a chain email (!) from a conservative blogger, one with a reading comprehension problem, to his constituents. Now that’s constituent service for you.

‘SpotCheck.org’? We Disagree. | FactCheck.org

‘SpotCheck.org’? We Disagree. | FactCheck.org:

“[McCaughey] claimed that we failed to note a section of the bill that she says sets up a ‘penalty’ for doctors who fail to give patients such advice and that ‘if there’s a penalty, it is mandatory.’ But she’s actually pointing to a section that would make ‘quality measures of end of life care’ one of more than 150 quality-of-care factors to be considered when awarding physicians a 2 percent bonus under Medicare. And physicians only have to report on a small subset of the measures in order to receive the bonus. That’s a far cry from creating a specific penalty for failure to counsel patients, much less making consultations ‘mandatory,’ as McCaughey originally claimed.
Furthermore, McCaughey went on to claim that doctors would be penalized ‘if the patient or their family changes their mind about their living will.’ But the bill says nothing of the sort. As one expert tells us, advance directives can be changed at any point.”

(Via FactCheck.org.)

QED.

Jon Stewart on Death Panels

UPDATE:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Healthcare Protests
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Healthcare Protests
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Jon Stewart keeps pointing out that the fact that conservatives are simply making up everything they say. they have no evidence or stand in truth. Period. McCaughey says she has evidence but can’t answer the simple question, “WHERE?” QED.

We are the Socialists for Britain

T.R. Reid: Looking Overseas For ‘Healing Of America’ : NPR:

Mr. REID: Yeah, yeah. One of the ways – you know, they have that thing on Britain on Wednesday where the prime minister stands up in parliament, and the other party insults him and shouts questions at him. And one of the most-standard questions is: A woman in my constituency has been waiting four weeks to see a doctor. This is outrageous. And that happens, and then the answer that the prime minister always gives is, well, obviously, the gentleman opposite wants to see us institute for-profit, American-style corporate medicine. This we will never do. You know? And they never will.
GROSS: Is that the worst thing that you can say, we’re going to institute American-style corporate medicine?
Mr. REID: All over the world, people say that. If you complain about health care, they say well, you want to move to America? You think that’s better?
Everywhere I went, people had this kind of smug superiority. They know. They know that we let people die and go bankrupt by the thousands in our health care system, and they don’t do that, so they feel better.
A person in the Health Ministry in Canada – you know, they’re kind of understated people in Canada – said to me, you know, we don’t go around chanting we’re number one like some countries I know, but there are two areas where we’re better than the states: hockey and health care.
(Soundbite of laughter)

(Via NPR.)

Our system is ranks 37th in the world right between Costa Rica and Slovenia.

How Far Would You Go to Save a Life?

Abortion is a hot button issue mainly because both sides care a great deal about the things they see themselves protecting: a woman’s control over her own body, her self, her personhood; an unborn child’s right to simply live. I don’t mean to answer that question here in this small space. (What hubris that would be!) I do intend to state where I am in all of this and that is in a state of moral dilemma. I see both sides as protecting things that are worthwhile, even essential.

(Version 1.5)

The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means.
–Georges Bernanos

Abortion is a hot button issue mainly because both sides care a great deal about the things they see themselves protecting: a woman’s control over her own body, her self, her personhood; an unborn child’s right to simply live, its self, its personhood. I don’t mean to answer that question here in this small space. (What hubris that would be!) I do intend to stake out where I am in this debate and that is in a state of moral dilemma. I see both sides of the issue as protecting things that are worthwhile, even essential. (I have something between disdain and contempt for the political “debate” as it stands. I don’t like people demonizing others nor do I like propaganda, i.e. comfortable lies.)

To put it as succinctly as I can, I am a pro-lifer unwilling to save the lives of the unborn by any means. I have always had moral problems with abortion and pro-choice arguments  have only solidified that position. I am not, however, a contraception-is-abortion pro-lifer. I don’t think RU-486 is an “abortion pill.” Preventing conception is simply not abortifacient. I tend to follow those in the medical profession who won’t perform abortions on unborn who clearly can feel and react to what is happening to them. In that, I find it cruel and inhuman.

But supporting its legal ban has always given me pause. The awful truth is that via the state I am usurping power and control over the most intimate parts of a woman’s body. An act very similar to rape. This escalates to full murder when pregnancy kills. And Hallmark cards aside, it does kill. But to put it in more palatable terms, it is violating the physical person of one individual for the sake of another in our society. And that is something that the majority of the Pro-Life movement do not have the moral integrity to acknowledge. We would recoil in horror if the state required people to donate bodily tissue, a kidney for example, in order to save the lives of others. It goes against many of our core democratic principles surrounding human rights.

How would we react if a man on dialysis, i.e. dying a slow death, was so far down the donor list that he virtually had no prospects for a transplant and the government saved him by finding and mandating a compatible person donate their kidney? How would any of us feel about being the donor? Remember, a person’s life is at stake here. Would you approve on that basis? I seriously doubt any of us would approve of such an act even to save a man’s life. So how is the mother of an unborn child worth any less than a kidney donor?

So until the pro-life movement is less pro-baby and fully pro-life and the pro-choice movement is less pro-woman and ceases to treat the unwanted unborn as something akin to the appendix, I remain in my moral Catch-22: support movements with little regard for life itself only that of certain parties.

So No Principles at 60?

When speaking on politics and sharing that my conclusions come from a matter of principle, I’ve heard Churchill’s old saw invoked to imply that they are those of some dreamy eyed waif with visions of some utopian paradise. In truth, I’ve tried to take that, frankly lazy, thinking graciously and ask myself, “So at what age is it proper to sacrifice my principles and values?” Because that is exactly what I would be required to do.

If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
–Winston Churchill

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
–Albert Einstein

When speaking on politics and sharing that my conclusions come from a matter of principle, I’ve heard Churchill’s old saw invoked to imply that they are those of some dreamy eyed waif with visions of some utopian paradise. In truth, I’ve tried to take that, frankly lazy, thinking graciously and ask myself, “So at what age is it proper to sacrifice my principles and values?” Because that is exactly what I would be required to do.
I’m only a few years away from 40 and admittedly, as I have gotten older, I have tempered where and when I pick my battles. But what I have found is that my principles burn that more brightly in my world perspective. A good friend, for whom I have tremendous respect and love, once asked me if with the birth of my son had my perspective on social issues, esp. on homosexuality, took on a more conservative bent. I told him no, if anything, I have less patience with conservatives whose political, theological, and social thinking and activities are at odds with my principles and values. Ironically, he was right that I was taking on a more conservative perspective in the way I view conservative ideas.
As many of my friends on Facebook know, I’ve been very vocal on the issue of healthcare. I take a very dim view of our system because it runs counter to deeply held values that are best expressed by my faith in Jesus Christ, something which I take very, very seriously. In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 25 verses 31 to 46, the author has Jesus talking about his return and the judgment of the nations at the Apocalypse. It’s in this section, that we see the phrase “the least of these.” A phrase often taken out of context to connote the sappy compassion of the liberal bleeding heart. Not so in Matthew, it is the love of the righteous as opposed to the wicked. Jesus makes his often heard list:

  • For I was hungry and you gave me food.
  • Thirsty and you gave me…drink.
  • I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
  • I was naked and you clothed me.
  • I was sick and you took care of me.
  • I was in prison and you visited me.

Note that he was talking about doing these things to the “least of these,” meaning the poor, the downtrodden, the vulnerable. The righteous who do these things get eternal life while the wicked receive perdition for refusing to do the same. Whether you read this story as allegorical or literal, it’s very clear how our healthcare system that rations care precisely on one’s ability to pay would fair on the least-of-these scale. Our system is wrong. It should be changed. That’s the liberal 20 year old speaking. As I get older, my epectations on how much things can and will change has been tempered, but never would I suggest that we slow change or conserve the status quo. Even if the goal is unattainable, which in this case it most certainly is not, it’s incumbent on me as a moral and sane person to be an agent of change. That’s the nearing 40 year old speaking.
So, my question to those who would ask me to have a brain once I reach forty and become a conservative. Do I have to trade in my principles, my values, my eternal soul in order to do so? Harshly said I know, but I want to rebut forcefully that sense of false pragmatism that is really disguised cynicism.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , ,