DADT is dead #11

This will be brief -- for all those who are tired of my DADT rants. But I want to respond to the story they're trying to make about the Marines being the branch that's different in opposing the repeal of DADT.

The very wide survey of 400,000 service men and women and their families reveals a pretty surprising result: a large majority (about 70%) says there will be little or no problem with the repeal.

Except for the Marines, where the majority oppose the repeal. Seems they think their vaunted macho reputation will be diluted by allowing gays to serve openly (as opposed to allowing them to continue to serve as long as they don't reveal it) - and they also trot out the line about the intimacy of the battlefield, sleeping next to each other, etc. etc.

The other big factor is that the top Marine generals also oppose it and have done so vocally. So leadership and sensitivity training might take care of a lot of this.

But here is the little-remarked thing at the end that we should put up there is bold type.

Marines also pride themselves on discipline, on following orders, and on excelling at whatever they do. Marine Lt. Col. Hackett is quoted as saying that "every good Marine follows orders, and if that's what the president orders, I can tell you by God we're going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen and be damn good at it."

So there you have it: just issue the orders, and the Marines can be counted on to hop to and have the best record on integrating their gay brothers.

Tell that to John McCain -- see if he spins around once again.

Ralph

Stupid people

Why are there so many stupid people in high places?

No, I'm not talking about She Who Shall Remain Nameless. Or Dick Cheney. Not the obviously partisan crowd.

I'm talking about people whom you expect would be relatively balanced in their views and put the interest of the nation and its people first, ahead of politics. People like Alan Greenspan, who should have known better but who used his (unjustified) oracular mantle to make things go in the wrong direction.

Today, although he's not in the same league, I'm thinking of journalist/columnist/author Joe Klein. To many, he's something of a joke rather than a serious pundit. But Time Magazine has him as a commentator on national and international affairs.

I find this astonishing -- that someone who is not blinded by strong partisan allegiance but just got it so wrong anyway. But at least he is now saying that he was wrong. Here's what Klein wrote today in Time:

Columnists are paid to have opinions. Sometimes those opinions are wrong. Those two sentences are as obvious as a sunrise, but usually unspoken by my fellow opinionmongers. I can point you to many weeks of prescience and sheer genius in my work since I arrived at TIME in January 2003. But I think we'd learn more if we took a look at one of my goofs: I supported George W. Bush's idea of partially privatizing Social Security, which he tried to enact after he was re-elected in 2004. This was a close call for me at the time; it seems positively idiotic now that we've experienced the Great Recession — and the idea of private investment has finally regained proper perspective.

Investment is about risk; Social Security is about certainty.

A fair amount of certainty is crucial when it comes to retirement. Why, you might ask, was I blind to this simple proposition at the time?

He then explains that he had been highly critical of the "bloody futility of Bush's war in Iraq," and he was definitely opposed to his "demonstrably foolish supply-side philosophy that spawned his tax cuts."

Still, he was going to be my President for the next four years; my fellow citizens, and many of my readers, had voted him in. The partial privatization of Social Security was, he said, the top domestic priority for his second term. This seemed bold and politically risky. Scaring the elderly about cuts in their retirement benefits is one of the oldest tricks in the book, but Bush truly believed that if people could invest retirement savings in the market, they would end up with larger pensions. . . .And so did I, albeit with a truckload of caveats.

I never thought it was a good idea and never understood how thinking people could think it was a good idea. And my reasoning was exactly what Klein says now: "Investment is about risk; Social Security is about certainty."

Why didn't everybody see that? I'm no economist. It's just plain, simple, kitchen table common sense. Seems like the only people who talk about common sense are those like She Who Shall Remain Nameless who try to make education and expertise the villain and substitute "the will of the people" and "common sense," instead of elite, liberal academics.

What we need are experts who know all they need to know and ALSO use common sense.

Ralph

Thanksgiving -- without irony

I have a special feeling of thankfulness this year -- for my surgeon and for the always pleasant, always efficient, always responsive nursing staff at Northside Hospital. As far as feeling taken care of, this was the best hospital experience I have had.

First, my surgeon, Dr. Deborah Martin, apparently did an (almost) unheralded, heroic job of turning what could have been a disaster (my gall bladder was on the point of rupture) into a routine surgery and post-op course. The first hint I had to how close I came was when the infectious disease consultant came in to see me two days after surgery and said, admiringly, "Dr. Martin saved your life."

Second, the nursing staff at Northside is simply without peer, in my limited in-patient experience. Starting with the simple fact that not a single member of that staff (from head nurse down to cleaning crew) failed to introduce him/herself, telling me their names and what they were there to do for me. They were unfailingly immediately available and solicitous and never left the room without asking, "is there anything else I can do for you?" No one ever seemed too busy to attend to my needs -- and right away, or else they explained why it would take a little while and approximately how long, and it usually took less. Seemingly little things add up, and this sum was a positive.

Third -- but really first -- is the loving gratitude that I feel for my two daughters, Joanna and Barbara, one of whom (taking turns) never left me from the moment I needed to go to the ER on Saturday night, until I insisted, after being home for a couple of days, that I really didn't need one of them to stay overnight now. This was, of course, at some sacrifice for them and their families, upsetting their work and family schedules. But they gave it freely without complaint, even minimizing what it took for them to rearrange their lives, and not at the most opportune time for them either.

When I complimented the nursing care to the head nurses, they invariably gave credit to my daughters, saying that they had rarely had a family who was so helpful and made their job easier.

Fourth -- I sincerely appreciate the many friends, colleagues, and neighbors whose calls, visits, cards and gifts of food and flowers expressed caring and concern.

Writing a blog is no substitute for telling all these people of my love and gratitude in person, which I intend to continuing doing as well.

The lesson for me in all this -- besides a first-hand awareness of the gift of health and those who help restore it when things go awry -- is the hardest: that it is also a blessing to "receive," as well as to give. Letting oneself be taken care of, letting friends express their love and concern -- and just "receiving" the gift with a simple "thank you" is often the thing to do.

As one of my daughters admonished me, when it seemed I was wanting to make up for the time she had taken off from work by doing something to "repay" her: if I did that, it robbed her of feeling that she was giving something to me out of love.

Sometimes it's is more blessed to receive than always to do the giving.

Ralph

Thanksgiving and political irony (? hypocrisy)

Republican senator Jon Kyle has much to be thankful for. Just 3 days after he and fellow Republicans renounced earmarks, the senate passed a bill into which Kyl had inserted a request for $200 million to help pay for an Arizona Indian tribe's claims against the government for water rights. So Kyl gets to have it both ways: he opposes earmarks, but then he got a big one for his constituents.

Kyl's office insists this isn't an earmark. So, what is it then? An earmark is generally considered a spending item inserted into another bill by an individual lawmaker that benefits "one specific entity or is targeted for a specific state."

Of course, Republicans (earmarkers, par excellence) have concluded that being anti-earmark is a political winner right now, so they've jumped on the bandwagon, even Mitch McConnell, who has been one of the top players of the pork game.

The irony of all this irony, however, is the more nuanced analysis of the whole earkmark/anti-earmark debate that is now being discussed.

Although "earmarks" have a deservedly bad name because of too many really useless pet projects that the powerful can obtain to fatten their own claims to largesse for their constituents (bridges to nowhere, for example). But the majority of these projects are probaby worthwhile financial aid to transportation, education, and infrastructure; and it's a way for the federal government to award money to help local governments.

The question is in the how of the process; the what is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that the earmark process awards funding based on the power of the seeker, not the merit of the project.

Now that the Repubs have taken to denouncing pork as their latest political pet, Democrats are pointing out that this is very interesting, given that most of these projects would now be decided and funded by the bureaucratic system of the administrative branch -- which for the next two years, at least, is under Democratic control.

Get it? -- now, instead of the Republican senator taking credit for a school or road in his district, the same project will get funded (or not) based on decisions within the administration's Transportation or Education ministries.

How ironic, and how sweet. Maybe it's the Democrats, after all, who should give thanks today for this Republican move.

Ralph

PS: I had bought into the whole "earmarks are bad" scenario; it just seemed outrageous that an individual powerful senator could grab such large sums of money almost for the asking. I still think that's a very bad system. But if the projects are good, then it's a question of the delivery system and who gets to control it. I too think it's better if it is more systematic rather than "to the rich and powerful go the spoils."

Obscene

"American businesses earned the highest quarterly profits ever,
since records began being kept 60 years ago."
vs
"Unemployment remains at nearly 10%;
millions of Americans set to lose unemployment benefits."
---------------------

"Luxury spending has rebounded
as the affluent recover from the recession faster than others."
vs
"One in five Americans using food stamps to buy groceries;
small businesses forced to slash work forces to stay alive."

---------------------

Welcome to the Republican world.

Ralph

The pope and condoms . . . again #4

I think this may be my last blog on the subject (that's not a promise, depending on developments); but I need to say this:

Yes, this was a courageous move on Benedict's part, to break with the long-held tradition and the iron-bound theological position of the church that opposes anything that artificially prevents a pregnancy from occurring.

And maybe it was a sincere examination of all the issues and coming to realize that I, among many others, was right last spring when we criticized his absolute anti-condom stance as "out of touch with the real world." And he certainly had his defenders then, some of whom I heard from following my opinion piece in the AJC.

If he really has changed his understanding and his sense of proportion, that's all to the good. However, the Vatican is still trying to say this doesn't change things, it's just saying that saving a life may be the lesser of two evils even if it prevents the creation of a new life.

Wow !! What a concession. I am skeptical, however, about the motives. The Vatican's clarifying statement came just hours before the announcement of the reliable study that showed a very significant reduction in the spread of AIDS and primarily due to the use of condoms.

But here's what I prompted me to post this (maybe) final say: In today's AJC story about all this, the subheading was just so stark:

"It's now permissible to prevent giving partners HIV."

Well, duh. Welcome aboard, buddy. That doesn't sound like a terribly courageous position to take.

But -- for whatever mix of reasons -- yesterday was a very good day for the fight against AIDS. And for that I am very thankful.

Ralph

Historic day for AIDS prevention

The AP's Marilynn Marchione reports (printed on Hiffington post):

In the nearly 30 years the AIDS epidemic has raged, there has never been a more hopeful day than this. Three striking developments took place Tuesday: U.N. officials said new HIV cases are dropping dramatically worldwide. A study showed that a daily pill already on pharmacy shelves could help prevent new infections in gay men. And the pope opened the way for the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

"I don't know of a day where so many pieces are beginning to align for HIV prevention and treatment, and frankly with a view to ending the epidemic," said Mitchell Warren, head of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, a nonprofit group that works on HIV prevention research. "This is an incredibly opportune moment and we have to be sure we seize it."

President Barack Obama said the groundbreaking research on the AIDS drug "could mark the beginning of a new era in HIV prevention."

The U.N. report said that new cases dropped nearly 20 percent over the last decade and that 33.3 million people are living with HIV now.

"We can say with confidence and conviction that we have broken the trajectory of the AIDS pandemic," said UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibe in Geneva.

Health officials credit part of the decline to wider condom use, and on Tuesday, in a historic shift in church teachings, the Vatican said that using a condom is a lesser evil than infecting a sexual partner with HIV.

Condoms remain the best weapon against AIDS . . .

While I gave Pope Benedict a lot of credit in my last post for opening his mind and making this huge change in his position, these headlines which came just minutes later show what the effect would have been had he continued to take his same old position.

The evidence seems clearcut and can no longer be denied: condom use not only significantly helps prevent the spread of HIV, it is the simple condom that is most effective. To continue to forbid its use -- even for married couples -- would really make the Roman Catholic Church so far out of touch as to be irrelevant.

Ralph

The pope and condoms . . . again #3

This is HUGE !!!!

The Associated Press has released a statement (found on the AJC website at: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/vatican-condom-use-less-751687.html) that must be read:

VATICAN CITY — In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.

The position was an acknowledgment that the church's long-held anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting lives at risk.

"This is a game-changer," declared the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

The new stance was staked out as the Vatican explained Pope Benedict XVI's comments on condoms and HIV in a book that came out Tuesday based on his interview with a German journalist.

The Vatican still holds that condom use is immoral and that church doctrine forbidding artificial birth control remains unchanged. Still, the reassessment on condom use to help prevent disease carries profound significance, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant.

"By acknowledging that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms," said Martin, a liberal-leaning author of several books about spirituality and Catholic teaching.

The development came on a day when U.N. AIDS officials announced that the number of new HIV cases has fallen significantly — thanks to condom use — and a U.S. medical journal published a study showing that a daily pill could help prevent spread of the virus among gay men.

"This is a great day in the fight against AIDS ... a major milestone," said Mitchell Warren, head of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. . .

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to apply only to men. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, the important thing was that the person took into consideration the life of another.

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this: ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. ... The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said.

I feel as if Benedict and the Vatican advisers read my blog of this morning and saw the light. I'm not that grandiose. But I am impressed by the huge leap this represents for Benedict, even if it is presented as "the lesser of two evils."

He does acknowledge the need to take into consideration "the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship." (Again, a bit odd to say that, after using a male prostitute as the example -- a relationship? What about married couples?)

But, in the end, he makes it more general. I think he has really listened. And it has got to be a tacit admission that his statement last spring was wrong. Thanks, Benedict.

Ralph

The pope and condoms . . . again #2

Poor Pope Benedict and the Vatican just can't seem to get a clear story line about condoms. This is a story that just won't die. Was it intentional or an unthinking error in discourse when the pope told a German interviewer that the use of condoms might "sometimes be justified" and gave as an example a male prostitute (presumably with male clients) using condoms to prevent infection.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that there are male prostitutes for women, not just for other men, and sometimes it's the same male prostitutes who can perform with either. It's the money, more than sex, that turns them on. Presumably, in the pope's view, they mustn't use condoms with women but might with men. But that's being totally ignored, and only complicates the story, which is complicated enough already.

The pope's comment had to be intentional, since the interview was published in book form with the Vatican's approval of the content -- at least the German version -- in which he says "male prostitute." The Italian translation says "female prostitute" -- which sends up the red flags about contraception -- but they're now saying that will be corrected in future editions of the Italian. So, yes, they're confirming that the pope said "male prostitute."

But what did he mean? That's another question. It sparked worldwide speculation that this was a crack in the door of the church's total opposition to contraception. And was it in some sense an acceptance of homosexuality, as well? And prostitution? Not so fast, the Vatican now says.

First of all, they have clarified that the book adds that the pope said this is not part of "a real or a moral solution" to the problem, but it could be a first step toward taking responsibility to prevent the spread of infection. OK.

But then you're left, in my opinion, with even greater problems of explanation. Trying to separate it from contraception just gets you into a tangle. This would mean that two people having sex where neither of them could get pregnant -- so there's no contraception involved -- could use condoms and stay safe; but if one of them could get pregnant, then you can't use condoms and, conceivably (sorry, bad choice of word), they could die from the encounter. And this would include, presumably, the wife of an HIV infected husband.

Here's the logical conclusion: a homosexual prostitute encounter can use condoms but a heterosexual prostitute encounter can't. Now we're into the area of gender discrimination -- in a matter of life and death.

Second, now the walk-back from the Vatican is saying that this should not be taken as any change in church policy, because the pope was "speaking colloquially" and not as a part of official church teaching. A half page New York Times article today explores this difference:

As is often the case with the Vatican, the clarification yielded more ambiguity. Was Benedict . . . opening up a conversation on condom use -- albeit in specific cases to prevent AIDS between male sex partners -- or wasn't he? And how is the world supposed to consider remarks by the pope that are not official church teaching?

"It is not very easy to define the difference," said Sandro Magister, a veteran Vatican reporter in Italy. In the "graduated spectrum of authority" between official church teachings -- encyclicals, laws, homilies -- and Benedict's conversational remarks, "I'd say this is an inferior grade."

Do they think the world's billions of people who hear this will appreciate this subtle difference? It must be frustrating to the PR-challenged Vatican insiders to have a simple sentence, given as an example, take on such vast importance -- not only to the more than a billion Roman Catholics worldwide, but to the larger world of media curiosity. But that's what you get when you set one man up as the authority on earth of God Almighty.

Words are heard, parsed, weighed, contextualized, or not -- and they matter. Accept the pope as a supreme moral authority -- or not -- there is no way he can make an off-hand remark and have it not matter. Nor do I think they meant to. It's just that they didn't think through the illogic of the position, because they are in this theological bubble that most of us don't share.

If the pope wanted to "start a conversation" and begin to rethink the whole question of contraception as well as non-procreative sex, then he has at least set it in motion. But so far it sounds like the Vatican response is more damage control than engagement in dialogue.

As I've said before, in my irreverent critique of the illogic of the church's positions: it's hard to make sense in explaining a policy that doesn't make sense. Because how are you going to explain this: maybe it's justified for a male prostitute to protect his male clients, but it's not justified for a married, HIV infected man to protect his own wife?

One thing does seem to be clear, however:

Behind all the furor, this was an attempt to undo the damage the pope's former remarks about condoms increasing the spread of AIDS. Because here clearly he gives as an example a (perhaps) justified use of condoms to prevent infection. Take note of that.

Ralph

"Christian values" ???

I know that there is an ongoing, centuries-long debate within Christianity about the true meaning and core essence of the Christian faith: is it the belief in the divinity of Jesus as the Son of God or is it the so called "social gospel" of Jesus' message of being "my brother's keeper"?

I got turned off many years ago when I heard a minister in my home town Methodist church say that Albert Schweitzer couldn't go to heaven because he didn't believe that Jesus was divine. Schweitzer, was one of my teen-age heroes who literally lived the social gospel.

He gave up a life of academic scholarship and performance as a classical musician to train as a doctor and then found a medical mission in the heart of Africa, where he devoted the rest of his life to caring for sick people in the deepest, darkest continent. I decided if this church couldn't include Albert Schweitzer because of what I had come to think of as a "technicality," it wasn't the place for me either.

The latest iteration of this argument has now surfaced in the form of an article by an American Family Association columnist, Bryan Fischer, who criticizes the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Army Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. The official citation states that Giunta exposed himself to withering enemy fire during a daring effort to engage the enemy and extract his wounded comrades from an ambush.

Fischer's complaint? The Medal of Honor has been "feminized" because it was given for saving lives rather than killing enemies. He wrote: "So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things, so our families can sleep safely at night?"

Fischer was taken to task by his own fellow Christians, including David Gibson, religion editor for "Politics Daily," who wrote:

Indeed, while Fischer's column irked many of his allies, his views are in keeping with a strain of conservative American Christianity that frets about the "feminization" of the faith as evidenced by the widespread emphasis on God's love and mercy rather than his anger and punishment, for example. And some such Christian conservatives are also concerned about efforts to accept gay clergy and to portray Jesus as a passive, wimpy victim rather than a tough-guy martyr like the Messiah portrayed in Mel Gibson's movie, "Passion of the Christ."

"Jesus' act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless -- yes, meaningless -- if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life," Fischer wrote in his original column on Giunta's Medal of Honor. "The cross represented a cosmic showdown between the forces of light and the forces of darkness, and our commanding general claimed the ultimate prize by defeating our unseen enemy and liberating an entire planet from his bondage."

Jesus as "commanding general?" That is not that way I was taught the Christian message in my young years. It was all about love and self-sacrifice. Jesus crucifixion was taught as the ultimate sacrifice of self for the good of all, not as a "cosmic showdown" with the devil. And I would challenge the statement that it would have been meaningless, if he had not defeated the forces of darkness. I haven't noticed any lack of the "forces of darkness" in the world during my 78 years. But I do think that giving up yourself for others is a potent lesson that has endured.

But then maybe my family's slice of Christianity was too much about love and forgiveness instead of hate and vengeance. Even it was too confining for me (as in the exclusion of Schweitzer). So I kept what I think of as the message of love and caring for others and the social gospel -- and left all the theology and trappings behind.

But I guess I didn't completely lose "the Sunday morning habit," as the Unitarians I gravitated to for a while would say. Because it is Sunday morning, and here I am preaching.

Ralph

Please, could we have a Palin-free day?

I am Palin-saturated. Here is this beautiful woman, who doesn't know diddely squat about government, who complains about the "lamestream media" intruding into her life -- and yet she self-promotes all over the media.

Just yesterday on the main web page of Huffington Post there were three stories about her and one about daughter Bristol and her latest appearance on "Dancing With the Stars." And on the politics page, there were eight stories:

"Going Rogue, Take 2" about her new book, with excerpts.
"Barbara Bush Jabs Palin: "I hope she stays in Alaska."
"Sarah Palin Slams Michelle Obama"
"Sarah Palin Accuses Others of 'Bear Propaganda' in New Book"
"Biden Assesses a Potential Obama-Palin 2012 Matchup"
"Palin Takes Aim at Levi Johnston"
"Palin Book Targets First Lady in Racially Charged Passage"
"Conservative Mona Charen Blasts Sarah Palin's Possible 2012 Presidential Run"'

ENOUGH !!

Let's observe a Palin-free day, at least.

Ralph

PS: Er, so why am I contributing to this Palin-mania by putting this up?