President Barack Obama is on a roll. After nearly four years of “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage, he finally caught up to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
As expected, there has been much media hoopla about Mr. Obama’s sudden profile of “courage” regarding this very controversial social issue.
But is all the praise deserved?
Not quite, . . . at least according to some observers who say that Obama is still dancing around the issue.
For starters, The Atlantic reminds us of what Cheney said in 2009 on the issue of gay marriage:
“Well, I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said. “. . . I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute that governs this, I don’t support . . . It has always been a state issue, and I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is on a state-by-state basis.”
So why exactly did Mr. Obama wait three years to say the very same things that Dick Cheney said in a July 2009 interview?
Is he worried about his upcoming election? Did he have an epiphany? Was it the result of a recent referendum in North Carolina?
Not exactly.
Obama got put into a box by his No. 2.
A few days ago, Vice President Joe Biden had a stunning moment of clarity that apparently caused lots of hand wringing in the Oval Office.
Biden made it abundantly clear that he supports gay marriage. For nearly 48 hours, the media was talking more about Biden than Obama.
That will just not do.
So, the prez called his buddies at ABC and cautiously waded into the pool, offering some rather tepid remarks about an issue that should be at the forefront of his party’s platform.
” . . .[Obama] now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?”
Gawker correctly reminds us why the president’s words were so lame and pathetic:
” . . . before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama’s position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.”
If our president had real courage or anything remotely resembling integrity, here is what he should have said:
“Gay people have the right to get married just the same as atheists, heterosexuals or any other consenting adult. Marriage is a deeply personal issue, and our government should acknowledge and respect the decisions of all marriages without deference to religion, gender, sexual orientation or race.
“I will make it a central point of my second term to ensure that every gay person has the same rights as every other American. I will take this message to each and every one of our 50 states and sell it door-to-door if I have to. It is just the right thing to do, and anyone who values liberty and personal freedom ought to be standing proudly with me on this issue. Period.”
Well, we can hope for change, right?
Yeah, don’t hold your breath looking for real leadership from either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney on this issue.
Oh yeah, one more thing: Which president signed the Defense of Marriage Act and deployed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Did you enjoy your summer? I hope so, because now we return you to your regularly scheduled weather for late March in southern Maine.
There was rampant speculation about last week’s freakish heat wave, an anomaly that shattered local meteorological records and sent scores of disappointed people to Old Orchard Beach in search of Pier Fries.
Some folks opined that increasing solar flares from the sun were to blame. Others said fiery rhetoric from presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was dramatically increasing gaseous emissions and further eroding our fragile ozone.
And, of course, global-warming alarmist were out in full force, smugly announcing that the much-anticipated end of the world is now in full swing.
But leave it to those crazy Brits to get to the meat of the story.
Apparently, the earth has a long track record of warming and then cooling. It’s a cycle that’s been going on for centuries, long before rednecks like me were driving F-150s to suburban shopping malls in pursuit of consumer electronics and plastic bags.
If you don’t believe me, check this story in London’s Daily Mail newspaper, which reported a new study that throws a monkey wrench into the global climate change debate.
According to the story, a team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe — it extended to Antarctica.
Now there’s an inconvenient truth that ought to be as easy to understood as a trip to Peaks Island.
We had an Ice Age long before we had SUVs. Peaks and all the other islands in Casco Bay were created long ago when southerly flowing glaciers carved out the island masses.
Even in Greenville, Maine — arguably the state’s greenest community, there is evidence of historical global warming: it’s called Moosehead Lake.
Moosehead Lake, Maine
We have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our natural resources; and none of this should justify industrial pollution or irresponsible human behavior.
It’s just that you should remember that there is an agenda to the global warming hysteria. It’s a belief that individuals should not get to choose how much energy they use. Other people want to tell you how you should heat your home, what kind of car you should drive and what type of lightbulbs you can use.
Look, if it helps you sleep at night by driving a Prius… knock yourself out. If you want mercury-laced, curly lightbulbs in your kids’ playroom — have at it.
But don’t think that any of that is going to fundamentally change the planet’s natural evolution.
Earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time. To think that you can save the planet is the height of arrogance. The planet will change with or without you.
If you want credibility, then lead by example: ditch your car, buy a bicycle and get off Facebook….computers are made of petroleum-based products and they consume gobs of electricity.
If only the Neanderthals had Twitter, maybe they could have stopped those damned glaciers.
But then, where would I drive my boat?
Global warming has been good to me—even if only to give my furnace and my wallet a much-needed break during the final days of winter.
The most vocal supporters of President Obama’s push to reform our nation’s health care system will invariably say that health care is a “fundamental right.”
The so-called “right to affordable health care” has become the mantra and favorite talking point for those who say health care in the United States ought to look a lot more like it does in other countries, including Canada, Norway, Sweden or Denmark.
These folks generally support a single-payer system of health care, which resembles the current Medicaid program and effectively eliminates the need for private insurance.
But is health care — or even access to health care — a right?
In our first installment (Money for Nothing), we followed up on questions posed by Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant on his Facebook page:
“So the moral question is: What should a society do in such situations? What should government do? Do we act, or do we allow the laws of Darwin to supersede our compassion, integrity and our humanity? The system is broken. . .”
Although we previously discussed the difference between health “insurance” and health “care,” Casavant’s questions also beg a discussion about where morality and government should — or should not — intersect.
Casavant’s questions also prompt a more focused pondering of how our nation defines “rights.”
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is probably a good place to start when examining the concept, definition and limitations of “rights” held by the American people:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Reading that sentence it becomes crystal clear our nation’s Founders understood basic rights come from a higher power than government. And this is a fundamental point.
Government cannot bestow rights; otherwise government can take away rights.
Your rights are yours, with or without a government.
The government’s limited role, as defined by both the Declaration and the ensuing Constitution, is to secure and defend your individual rights as part of a much larger group.
But the Declaration of Independence also opens the door for a legitimate discussion and debate about other “rights” beyond Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are described as being “among” other, non-specified rights.
The argument for health care as a right gained further legitimacy when our Founders drafted the Constitution. It is within this document that our Founders more fully explored the concept of government’s appropriate role in promoting the “general welfare.”
Although the subject of health care is not discussed in either the Declaration or the Constitution, it could be reasonably construed as much of a “right” as public education — another topic not specifically discussed in those documents.
During our nation’s formative years, there was no such thing as public education. Education was reserved for the privileged few who could afford it.
Today, however, most people generally agree that our nation is better off when our citizens have — at minimum — a certain level of education.
Although our nation continues to grapple and debate public education funding, those costs and the ensuing delivery system is much easier to control than the cost and delivery of health care.
And here’s where it gets really tricky.
If we declare health care as a “right,” how does that impact your other rights as an individual?
If the government provides your healthcare from cradle to grave, then does it not follow that the government can dictate your health choices and even many of your lifestyle choices?
If we allow government to take care of us, are we not abdicating our individual pursuit of happiness?
I moved out of my parents’ home because I was ready to enjoy my adult freedoms. I wanted to come and go as I pleased. I wanted to make my own choices about what I eat, when and where I sleep and all the other benefits of freedom.
If my pursuit of happiness includes a poor diet that includes a daily regimen of Big Macs and French Fries, are you responsible to help pay the cost of my inevitable need for a heart transplant?
We have established standards and limitations for public education.
We accept the fact that not every child will be able to attend Harvard or Yale. Of course, you have the “right” to apply, but those universities also have the right to reject your application.
If you want to make the moral case for public health care, what happens when your health care contradicts your neighbors rights to his/her religious beliefs?
During the Vietnam war, even our military made accommodations for drafted citizens to be conscientious objectors. If you are Catholic, should you be required to help pay for abortions and contraceptives?
Where do your rights as an individual end — or start — in a society that provides you with health care?
How much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice for your safety?
One of the most ardent opponents of smoking was Adolph Hitler, a man who envisioned a nation of supreme and physically fit citizens. Mentioning Hitler in this debate is intended to be inflammatory, only if to give us pause.
If you have the right to health care, does that mean that other people should financially support that right? If so, are there any limitations to how much health care any one individual wants or needs?
These are legitimate questions and not very convenient for either side of the debate.
If we propose that health care is a right, then we will need to completely reconstruct our health care system. We would have public doctors and nurses, whose employment contracts and salaries are negotiated by the government — just like teachers.
We would also have public health care clinics that are less desirable than their private counterparts.
In the end, those with money would have better access to service than those without money.
Sound familiar?
The hypocrisy found in these arguments is overwhelming.
We want our choices. We want our freedom, but we would prefer that the consequences of our individual choices are funded — at least in part — by other people.
Maybe it’s just time to move back in with mom and dad.
If you would like to further explore the arguments for and against the concept of health care as a right, you may want to visit this website.
Anyone with a pulse and an IQ exceeding room temperature can likely agree that our nation’s health care system is seriously flawed.
But that’s generally where the agreement stops.
That’s why I was impressed when Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant posed a series of observations about Maine’s own raging health care debate on his Facebook page.
August 2009: Large crowds in Portsmouth, NH, protest outside a high school where President Obama speaks about the need for health care reform.
Casavant is also a member of the Maine House of Representatives, and his comments were based on his observations during a legislative hearing about how best to address rising health care costs.
“Clearly, resentment [of] the Obama plan drives a lot of these bills,” Casavant noted, referring to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.
“For some, the costs of treatment and medicine exceed their ability to pay,” he said. “So the moral question is: What should a society do in such situations? What should government do? Do we act, or do we allow the laws of Darwin to supersede our compassion, integrity and our humanity? The system is broken. . .”
I applaud Casavant for raising the topic, but submit that our health care system is NOT broken, it is fixed . . . meaning it is rigged.
Our current system is either outdated and ineffective, at best ; or it is favorably geared toward an ever shrinking pool of those who can afford to keep up with skyrocketing costs.
Are you with me, so far? Good; because this is where the debate gets tricky.
Before we proceed any further, we must agree to at least one basic fact, regardless of our individual political/cultural/socio-economic viewpoints.
Health “care” and health “insurance” are completely different topics that are too often linked at the hip.
Let’s start with health insurance.
If you drive a vehicle in Maine, you are required by law to have a minimum-liability insurance policy. This law exists to protect drivers who are harmed by another driver’s neglect or carelessness.
Driving, as the state of Maine tells all new drivers, is a privilege, not a right.
I will take that a step further and say that health “insurance” is also not a right.
Laura and I scored tickets to see President Obama speak about the need for health care reform in 2009. Then, just as it is now, we both had reservations about the president’s plan. Laura tried to ask a question, but she and many others did not get picked.
The argument about whether health care is a right remains a bit more ambiguous, but let’s remember we’re now discussing health “insurance,” not health “care.”
The discussion about rights and expectations have only been muddied by the nation’s new health care law, which mandates individuals to purchase health insurance in the private marketplace.
The so-called “individual mandate” is one of the more controversial aspects of the health care reform law signed by President Obama. That issue is scheduled to be deliberated by the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
Interestingly, critics of the individual mandate can be found from both the left and right side of the political spectrum.
Conservatives argue that the individual mandate further erodes personal liberty and crosses the sacrosanct line between personal choice and government mandates.
On the other hand, more progressive Democrats — especially those who pined for a public option or a single-payer system of healthcare reform — describe the individual mandate as nothing more than a very big gift for evil insurance companies that stand to gain millions of new customers.
But all that debate and Constitutional introspection pales in comparison to the more fiery rhetoric associated with the subject of health insurance profits.
Left-leaning groups, such as ACORN and HCAN (Health Care for America Now) say that corporate, for-profit health insurance profits are skyrocketing and have quadrupled over the past few years.
It’s a favorite talking point of progressive Democrats and very handy when whipping up grassroots mobilization to support the president, but it’s not entirely accurate — although rated as “mostly true” by PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning organization established by the Tampa Bay Times to fact check political rhetoric.
Meanwhile, the health insurance industry is crying poverty, saying their profit margins are among the lowest of any industry in the United States — ranging between two and four percent.
So, which one is right?
Unfortunately, the inconvenient truth is that both groups are a little bit right, and a lot wrong.
And that is bad news for those of us trying to navigate the turbulent waters of this complex debate.
But simply blaming “greedy” insurance companies conveniently ignores too many other factors that drive health care costs. Moreover, such rhetoric is debatable, at best; and intentionally misleading at worst,
Rick Newman, chief business correspondent for US News & World Report, makes a compelling case about why health insurance companies make lousy villains, pointing out that profits are hardly the root of a much larger and complex problem.
“Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent,” Newman reports.
Despite my right-leaning, free-market beliefs, I admit to being somewhat conflicted on this issue, and that’s probably because my household is knee-deep in our own health-insurance nightmare.
My wife, Laura, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis just three days after Christmas in 2008. Her disease is never going to go away. It is never going into remission. It takes a little piece of her each day, even when we don’t notice it.
Laura does a good job of managing her illness, but there is no escaping that MS is a progressive illness that will never go away and only get worse over time.
Neither of us asked for our respective illness. We both work full-time. We pay our taxes, but we are also a health insurance company’s worst nightmare…we take out a lot more than we put in to the system.
If you’re a conservative, Tea-Party Republican, you are advised now to reach for the duct tape because otherwise your head may explode when I offer up this next tidbit:
You are paying a portion of our health insurance.
Laura is a state employee and thus, we are more than lucky to have an outstanding health insurance plan that is offered to all state employees and their immediate family members.
But even if Laura lost her job, and we relied upon a more traditional (and much more expensive) private health insurance plan, you would still be paying for our health insurance.
Why? Because in our current system, healthy Americans subsidize the costs of treatment for the ill. That is the fundamental core of the individual mandate: we need more young, healthy people in the system to offset the cost of treating older and sicker Americans.
I am not a big fan of the individual mandate – beyond the Constitutional arguments, I think the system unfairly penalizes healthy people and will do little to drive down the costs of health care.
There is a lot more to cover, but I will end this installment here and borrow Casavant’s closing observation from his Facebook post: Stalemate [on this issue] is unacceptable.
You know a political nerve has been pinched when Rush Limbaugh apologizes for comments he made on his national radio show.
Rush’s outrageous comments about Sandra Fluke ignited a deafening outcry from women’s groups and reproductive rights advocates this week, and several of his advertisers are now distancing themselves.
Because this is a presidential election year; and because Rush is an unabashedly conservative pundit, his comments are being used by Democrats to underscore the notion that Republicans are waging a war against women.
Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy just a few days before Super Tuesday.
Check the cheering and applause that HBO talk show host Bill Maher received when he described Sarah Palin as a “dumb twat.”
A few nervous giggles, but applause nonetheless…
So, if a Republican commentator demeans women with vitriolic commentary we gather the pitchforks and demand his head on a stick.
But if a liberal commentator does the same thing, we laugh or just look the other way. Is that how it works?
Make no mistake, both Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are pigs, and their outrageous comments should be condemned by everyone with a pulse, regardless of political affiliation.
California Governor Jerry Brown, a former presidential candidate, apologized for comments that were attributed to him and/or his staff, describing Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a whore during the gubernatorial campaign.
From my perspective, an apology doesn’t cut it.
George Will got it right when he said the word “inappropriate” is far too tame for describing Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
“Inappropriate is when you use your salad fork for your entrée,” Will quipped on ABC’s Good Morning America, saying Republicans are too tepid in their response and afraid of Limbaugh and his massive audience.
Violence against women begins when we give ourselves permission to demean them with our discourse.
As the father of two young men, I have an inherent obligation to speak out about the pervasive nature of gender violence and misogyny.
As an amateur pundit, I just wonder why it’s somehow funny when Bill Maher calls a woman a twat, yet outrageous when Rush Limbaugh infers that a woman is a slut.
Dean Scontras, the Republican who challenged Chellie Pingree in the 2010 First District Congressional race, is also bothered by the crystal-clear hypocrisy.
On his Facebook page, Scontras said that until those who sympathize with the left express equal outrage over Maher’s remarks about Palin, they should remain silent about Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
I disagree.
Although I despise the hypocrisy, remaining silent about Rush Limbaugh’s vile commentary just because Bill Maher was equally (or arguably more) offensive, only serves to amplify and allow a very real war against women to fester – – if only beneath the surface.
Although I am confident that people who know me understand the context of my satirical commentary, my words were immediately thrust onto the stage of public discourse via the power of the internet.
A very wise woman once told me that words are like toothpaste. Once you squeeze them out, it is virtually impossible to put them back in their container.
So, I will not edit or delete that post. I will leave it where it remains as a constant reminder of my own hypocrisy.
And, hopefully, my willingness to at least acknowledge my own boorish behavior will serve as an example for how not to behave.
Some people say that our national political discourse is out of control and filled, more than ever before, with the rancor and tension of partisan politics that threatens to destroy the fabric of our united nation.
“If Sen. Olympia Snowe is really retiring from the U.S. Senate because she can’t stand the poisonous partisanship in Congress – and we have no reason to doubt her word on that score – then Maine is paying a terrible price for the rancor that has become business as usual in Washington, D.C.”
We only need look just beyond Maine’s borders to find moderate Republicans, such as Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Not to mention that no one could reasonably say Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Utah’s Orrin Hatch or John McCain are anywhere near Tea Party favorites.
Hatch was a close personal friend of the liberal lion, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and they worked closely on several pieces of legislation.
Former Maine Senator Edmund Muskie
If anything, there is far too much moderation in the Senate and not enough people to stand up and cry foul when necessary. But the media won’t tell you that.
Why? Well, have you ever watched C-SPAN? It’s more boring than watching paint dry.
More than 99.9 percent of the time, both parties in Congress are working cooperatively and doing a super-duper, stand-up job of figuring out how to further screw the people they supposedly represent.
The system is not broken. It’s fixed.
But the media likes to focus on the Rand Paul’s of the world, or the banality of Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted, “You lie!” during a State of the Union Address by President Obama.
That kind of partisan hype makes for better Facebook updates and newspaper headlines than the recent bipartisan push to reauthorize the Defense Spending Act; or last month’s transferring of budget line-item veto power to the president, a scary proposition for all of us, depending on who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Did you see that in the newspaper or on your favorite blog?
That nugget seemed especially important for Snowe to mention during last month’s Republican caucuses in Maine, where she was facing primary challenges from more conservative candidates.
Reportedly, Snowe votes along party lines nearly 75 percent of the time. Good for her! She’s a Republican, what do you expect? But does breaking ranks one out of four times make you a moderate? Please.
We have become a nation of sheep, bleating for civility and warm, fuzzy sentiment.
But what about Nancy Pelosi’s statements when the House was finally able to pass the controversial health care reform bill? We won…deal with it. Should Democrats be a bit more moderate and side more often with Republicans?
We conveniently forget the rancor that dominated the Continental Congress, the Burr-Hamilton duel, the partisanship that led to the Civil War, the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, the communists-hunting era of Joe McCarthy or the vitriol expressed by Barry Goldwater, not to mention the more recent call for President Clinton’s impeachment.
Maine people, especially, should be mindful of those lessons and our place in history.
Look at how the GOP slung mud at Ed Muskie; or consider the wisdom of Margaret Chase Smith as she chastised McCarthy: “Have you no shame, sir?”
Instead of heeding the mindless, perfunctory analysis of media pundits, maybe we all should crack a history book every once in a while.
For a fun, yet historically accurate, reminder about our nation’s political discourse and the angry words used by our founding fathers, check out this video.
On the heels of a public uproar regarding the sanctity of the internet, there is growing evidence that it’s a good idea to do your own fact checking and think through things that are posted by your friends on Facebook or circulated by groups with an agenda.
Subject at hand: a graphic chart that supposedly shows President Obama has had little impact on the national debt, especially when compared to his Republican predecessors.
Don’t you hate partisan politics and political mudslinging?
If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, I’ll bet you are lying, if only to your enlightened self.
Mudslinging, whether you like it or not, is politically effective.
I know, I know . . .you (and just about everyone else) say you want your elected officials to hold hands, sing Kumbaya and back-slap each other while working to ensure that their constituents are well represented and cared for.
But do you?
Really?
A little more than a year ago, our nation called a bi-partisan 15-minute timeout to honor those who died in a senseless massacre in Tucson; and a little more than a decade ago both Republicans and Democrats joined hands to show national resolve in the wake of the horrific 9-11 attacks.
Those moments were more theater than anything else; orchestrated political moves full of sound and fury, signifying practically nothing.
That’s why I was heartened this morning to read the comments from Chris Potholm, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and one of Maine’s most pre-eminent political analysts, when he was asked about the second annual lovefest during the national State of the Union address by president Obama.
You know, Republicans have to find a Democrat to sit with, and vice-versa.
“It’s symbolic political theater of the worst kind,” Potholm told Bill Nemitz of the Maine Sunday Telegram. “It’s utterly useless and silly, and it’s not a substitute for them getting together and solving our nation’s problems.”
Nemitz points to a recent Real Clear Politics poll, which shows more than 80 percent of those polled disapprove of the job Congress is doing.
But that poll, and all the warm-fuzzy sentiment expressed by groups like No Labels, One Maine and others, contradict what we see happening every day in this country, in our state and in our local town halls.
A lack of political dissent, party opposition and hardcore nationalism can have distavorous results. 1938 Germany should give all of us pause.
Americans intuitively know that they are better served when the balance of power is split between the dominant political parties…from Ronald Reagan/Tip O’Neil to Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrinch…these were the times when America was functioning at its best.
Democrats want Republicans to fail. Republicans want Democrats to fail. This is the cost of a two-party system. But it makes sense, and it even has value right up until you understand that Rome is burning while our leaders are jockeying for a better corner office.
What too many people describe as bipartisanship would be better described as having the other guys do it our way.
If you’re an ardent Democrat, you want the Tea Party to dissolve and relocate to Pakistan. If you’re a Republican, you want to see President Obama leave office yesterday and take Joe Biden with him. Can we just admit that truth?
Sure, a growing number of Americans (myself included) describe ourselves as Independents, but even we have strong feelings on issues, and don’t like to “compromise” if one of our core “principles” is being threatened.
There are some things that should never be negotiated. There are some principles that should never be compromised.
The hard part is determining where you can bend; and what you are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
That kind of effort requires political and emotional maturity, not a staged seating arrangement.
Eliminating political friction in the name of efficiency and policy expediency could yield some attractive, short-term benefits. But such a move would also set the stage for potentially disastrous outcomes, the implications of which could be more than our Republic can bear.
Don’t you just hate the 1 percent? You know . . . all those fat cats who have way more than they need. Meanwhile, the rest of us…the 99 percent…are struggling for survival and getting screwed by the system.
Sound familiar? It’s the anthem of the Occupy Movement, a mantra that can be traced back through civilization, but was not talked about much before the US economy tanked in 2008.
Take from the rich and give to the poor. It’s the stuff of fairy tales, fables and it makes for easy and convenient talking points, centered upon a powerful emotional message of righteous indignation.
But do you really loathe or even hate the 1 percent?
Well, maybe you should look in the mirror because you are part of the 1 percent.
Make no mistake, millions of Americans remain unemployed, and they are genuinely struggling to put food on the table and to stay warm in their homes during these difficult economic times.
But a bit of perspective is in order, especially when considering that the United States remains as one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
I hate to tell you this, but we – you and me—are the 1 percent.
Ask a 12-year-old boy in Tanzania about poverty. But before you do, give him some data about how we define poverty here in the United States. Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that as many as 40 million Americans live in poverty.
The Census Bureau calculates the poverty level each year. In 2009, a typical family of four with a household income of $22,000 was considered living in poverty.
Meanwhile, the United Nations reported that more than 925 million people in the world are hungry. Roughly 2 percent of them live in developed nations such as the United States, Japan, Canada, Britain, France, etc.
More disturbing are findings of the Heritage Foundation’s research report that used data from U.S. Government reports and surveys, including those by the U.S. Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
For example, in 2005, the typical U.S. household defined as poor had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a washing machine, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
I am not attempting to diminish the struggles of those who live in poverty, rather I am hoping to illustrate that we too often ignore or dismiss how very fortunate we are in the United States. Even the poorest among us is far wealthier than most of the world.
If you or someone you know thinks you are poor, ask yourself the following questions:
Do you own or have access to a computer?
Do you have a cell phone? A refrigerator? Indoor plumbing? A change of clothes? A television? A stereo? A car or truck? A microwave oven? An air conditioner?
Despite the current bump in the economy, the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans are living in greater prosperity than has any other generation before.
We were standing in Monument Square, night after night, holding candles shielded by clear plastic cups and stamping our boots on the ground to stave off the cold and howling winds of a Maine winter.
There were maybe 15 of us who would show up every night.
If memory serves, we were protesting the nuclear arms race. It didn’t matter; we could have been protesting the high cost of broccoli for all I cared.
Occupy Wall Street protesters rally in a small park on Canal Street in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
It was a social event, and we were bonding in our noble sense of self-righteous sacrifice. We were the enlightened ones, those willing to take a stand for peace, much unlike all those ignorant lemmings driving past us on Congress Street in their Volvos, BMWs and Ford pickup trucks.
Forgive me for being a cynic but that’s what a quarter century of living in “the system” will do to you. I no longer have the luxury of spending several weeks in a public park. I’ve got responsibilities: a wife, two kids, a job and lots of bills to pay. If I lose my job or my house, I still have responsibilities: my country, my neighbors, my family…the list is endless.
In a strange way, I almost envy those OWS folks and their rage. They seem content in the chaos, as if now they have found their calling by blaming the system.
They are making a statement. “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
But lately my near envy has been slowing morphing into a deep sense of resentment.
Who are these people? I wonder as I drive by the tent city erected in the courthouse park. “Don’t they have homes, families, jobs, commitments?”
The answer is simple. No, many of them do not.
Too many of them have been screwed by “the system.” They were laid off, evicted or otherwise maligned by a terrible economy. It could happen to any of us. But before we go any further can we at least acknowledge that some of these people are also just simple malcontents?
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic, watching some clown with an I-Pad, the latest LL Bean camping gear and a Patagonia fleece vest rail against the system?
Do these folks think the world will change because they sit around playing guitar, smoking weed and living in a tent? If change were that easy, we’d be changing the system every four days.
Real change requires real work and sacrifice. There is a lot to do in this country, and every voice matters. Maybe it’s time for the OWS folks to get off their asses and work to change the system they loathe.
Maybe it’s time to stop complaining and join the 98 percent of us who understand that there will always be evil in the world, and it must be confronted head on; not by defecating on a police car or smashing a storefront window. Real change happens when just one person is willing to lead by example. And so far, the examples from the OWS folks have been less than impressive, to say the least.
In closing, and for the record, I am still against thermo-nuclear war, despite my mortgage and American Express card.
Thoreau said, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Thank, Christ….otherwise who could afford to buy his books?
I am the 98 percent, and now it’s time to go do laundry.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY | OUTLAW JOURNALIST 