The Facts of Gun Ownership

This recent Facebook Meme makes it clear that unrestricted gun ownership has severe consequences. Let’s take a look at each of the countries mentioned in that poster, and compare their gun laws to what we have here in the US. What can we learn from such a comparison?

72316_10151146554085872_516093712_nThe poster shown here must be a bit old (there is no country named “West Germany” any more), but the relative ratios of handgun deaths in the US to levels in these other countries has not improved with time.

In reviewing the gun laws of each of  the countries in this list, wikipedia provides the following information

Continue reading “The Facts of Gun Ownership”

Waterboarding, Baptism and the Dilemma of Women in Politics

1398707253422.cachedSarah Palin’s statement while speaking at the NRA Convention this week “if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists (as quoted in this article from the Daily Beast) once again shows that she is not a person given to connecting brain to mouth.

Yet, I also wonder, given how she phrased it – and her followup comments: is the underlying motivation for these thoughtless and harsh words because she does not want to be perceived as “soft,” per a common stereotype for women?

This is a charge often leveled against women in political office: Are they tough enough?  Are they capable of actually making hard decisions?   Are they the person you’d want to have in the Oval office when a crisis is at its’ peak?  We’ve seen such language and accusations used against not only Palin, but also Hilary Clinton, Wendy Davis, and even (for those of us who remember the early 1970’s) Shirley Chisolm.

Continue reading “Waterboarding, Baptism and the Dilemma of Women in Politics”

It’s not about Wingnuts and the “N” word

Racism is far from merely being about wingnuts using offensive language or people oblivious to the issue admitting they once spoke in that way. Racism has changed in some ways, but the basic mechanisms and patterns of it have not. What has changed is that people have gotten better at hiding their racist attitudes from others and even from themselves. The way we express our racism may have changed, but the basic issue still exists, and is a pervasive cancer in our politics and society. The real (and far more dangerous and despicable) racists are those who seek to exclude specific groups from participation in the political process when those groups are seen as not supporting the political party that is already in power. The biggest obstacle to change is that racists assume they are faultless.

Let’s begin by saying that the “N” word is an offensive, ugly word, and one I never willingly use. Racism is a topic that I feel deeply about, and am absolutely committed to confronting whenever (and wherever) it rears its ugly head.

So – when Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy makes racist comments, when celebrity chef Paula Deen admits to using that ugly word, or when LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is accused of making racist remarks – yes, I’m angered; and I will speak up.

But, I’ve done (and said) racist things, too.

In my early 20’s, I worked in a retail store.  One day, when I was the only sales clerk on duty, an elderly black man came in to ask for help with a particular item. Right then I was waiting on another customer, a woman, and so ignored him for the moment – in fact, I hardly noticed him. He waited patiently at the counter, since he saw that I was almost done with her.

In the meantime, another person came in – a white male – who walked around the first man and came over to where I was, at the other end of the sales counter.  When the woman left, this second man immediately began talking and I allowed my attention to focus on him, rather than turning to the man who had been waiting.

The first man immediately spoke up, saying (and I quote, as it is burned into my memory!), “Hey, I’m a customer too!  Or, is it that you don’t like to wait on n—-rs?

I was mortified, as you might imagine, and immediately turned to help him.

Was I racist, or acting in a racist way?  Well, I didn’t think so. I had long prided myself in being “open minded” and respectful of others, no matter who (or what) they were. But I was being racist because the one who determines whether we are racist (or not) is not us, but those who are impacted by our attitudes and actions. The elderly gentleman was right: I was acting in a racist way, even if unintentionally.

Racism is far from merely being about wingnuts using offensive language or people oblivious to the issue admitting they once spoke in that way. Racism, as the columnist LZ Granderson points out, has changed. Or, to put it another way, the basic mechanisms and patterns of racism have not changed. What has changed is that people have gotten better at hiding their racist attitudes from others and even from themselves. The way we express our racism has changed, but the basic issue still exists, and is a pervasive cancer in our politics and society.

Continue reading “It’s not about Wingnuts and the “N” word”

Aborted Babies Being Incinerated for Electricity?

Note (6/23/14): As promised, I have kept tabs on this issue.  The blog posting that appeared to be the source of much of the furor has been deleted, but KOIN (a television station in Portland) did air a news article citing the allegations, which were originally made in the magazine “BC Catholic.”  

Snopes.com has posted an article summarizing their own investigation into the issue.  In summary, officials reacted quickly to the allegations: the incinerator facility in Oregon will not accept further shipments of medical waste until they are assured that aborted fetuses were not part of the waste stream, as is being alleged (but which has not been proven to be the case).


 

At the moment, there is an article out on the internet that is going viral, entitled “Aborted babies are being incinerated to provide electricity in the United States“.

If true, this would be quite a problem, as I believe that the irreverent disposal of human remains (as is claimed here) is illegal in most of the US.

Further, I cannot find any facts to back up the assertion that this is (or was) being done. The story seems to originate with the above-mentioned blog posting.  There are a lot of references that it and other sources cite; however, when you try to trace the links – all of them lead back to the blog I’ve linked-to above.  I also noted that all of the online articles misspell “British Columbia” the Canadian province as “British Colombia” – Colombia is in South America.  So, they are all almost certainly relying on a single source, and doing “copy and paste republishing” without verifying the facts – very poor journalism, let alone ethics!

Another thing that  troubles me about this whole issue is the leaps in terminology that are being made – starting with “medical waste” then leaping to “fetal remains” and finally “aborted babies” – i.e., the words have become more incendiary; but I can find no facts to justify the changes in language.

Finally, the British Columbia Ministry of Health (which is the correct name, not “British Colombia Health Ministry”) has not responded to this claim at all (as of this posting), nor has any other government body within Canada, nor (as far as I can tell) any government body or hospital in the US.

So, whether this claim is true or not, there is nothing to back it up as of yet, and the many pro-life sites that are trumpeting this as a huge crime are employing language that is becoming more and more heated – even though there is nothing to substantiate anything that they are saying.

All I’m suggesting is that we learn the facts before we risk unjustly accusing someone, or make ourselves look silly by coming down so vehemently against a situation that more than likely bears no resemblance to the way it has been presented in the media (so far).

I will keep tabs on this issue, and will update this blog post as new information becomes available.

Refusing to Relate

Shattered Cross
“Shattered Cross” By LeBacco

A few (well, more than a few) years ago, my family and I moved to a home a little south of the small town of Honey Brook, near the border between Lancaster and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania.

This was deep in the heart of “Amish Country.”  Our home was on a small hill, surrounded by farms, many of which were owned by Amish families.

War and disaster loomed large in the minds of many at that time, since Y2K and 9/11 had both occurred within the previous couple of years, and we as a nation were pumping ourselves up into a frenzy in advance of the invasion of Iraq.  This sense of impending Apocalypse was also fueled by the “Left Behind” series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, which was a huge hit in bookstores at the time, as well as a major topic of discussion in the media.  (I might add that I loved the series, for the most part – good, fast paced and exciting stories.  But did I find their theology to be well grounded and realistic?  Not so much.)

A consistent theme many of my Amish (and ex-Amish) friends commented on is best summarized in this conversation I had with an Amish farmer’s wife who lived down the road from us (we frequently chatted when we stopped at her stand to buy eggs, chickens and produce):

“So, since you don’t rely on electricity or other modern technologies, when the world falls apart, you’ll be able to keep on going without too much problem.”

“No.  We may not have electrical or phone lines.  But we need diesel fuel to run our tractor; and we need diesel for the generator, which runs our milk coolers and other farm equipment.  If those diesel trucks stop coming, we can’t run the farm.  We’re just as dependent upon the rest of the world as you.”

Relationship: it’s always there, even when you don’t want it, inescapable and omnipresent.

So, in surveying the recent political flatulence over the issue of “Freedom of Religion” as portrayed in the recent and ongoing debate within Arizona and other states regarding who we can serve in our businesses and other organizations, I wonder: is the “right to serve only those that my religion allows me to” a real and achievable right, or a misguided attempt to delude oneself into thinking that we can simply dismiss those we find it uncomfortable to be around?

I can’t think of any group in this country more serious and steadfast on this issue of separating themselves from what they see as unwholesome influences then the Amish.  Many Amish avoid developing relationships with “outsiders” that are anything beyond the level of casual or business acquaintances.  In other words, they deal with “others” when they must, but only when they have to.  If they could, they would sever all ties with outsiders, but they can’t.  To survive in this world, they must accept some level of interaction with (and reliance upon) those whom they see as outsiders.

The proposed (and now vetoed) Arizona “Anti-Gay” Law (SB-1062) and all of the verbiage devoted to justifying it, didn’t go anywhere near as far as the Amish do.  All that it’s proponents wanted to do was to have the right to not serve those they found objectionable, for “religious reasons.”  No mention was made about their own reliance upon those who were “objectionable.”

If we’re really serious about isolating yourself from people whom we find to be objectionable, whatever the reason, then we need to do as the Amish do: isolate ourselves as completely as possible. After all, not only will “distasteful” people come through the shop’s door, but many of them are probably directly responsible for many of the products used or sold in our shops, as well as material we see in movie theatres, on TV or in print, not to mention the artwork on our walls, the furniture we sit in, and the clothes we wear.

We can’t have it both ways.  To say we won’t serve people whom we object-to, for whatever reason, means we must also be willing to reject anything they provide to us as well.  If not, then our objections are self-serving and disingenuous: not based upon a true and well grounded faith-based concern, but upon simply not wanting to have to deal with someone we find unsettling.

And yet, even the Amish have found they cannot go to that extreme.  We must rely on others, even others we do not find it comfortable to be around.  Relationship is inherent in not just the nature of human society, but in all of Creation.  Relationship – with God and with our fellow human beings – is also at the heart of the Christian Faith.  Relationship is inescapable, pervasive, and desirable.

And so I wonder why these issues keep on popping up under the guise of “Religious Freedom,” because it isn’t really about Religious Freedom, but about dictating to others what their place is – about confirming that where we stand, and our faith, is above reproach and not to be questioned, even though the validity of the others’ stance and their faith is to be questioned, and condemned.  It is about a refusal to acknowledge that we must relate with “The Other” in some way, even if we don’t want to.

“Religious Freedom” is also being used, in this instance, as a watchword for the politics of divisionforcing people into conflict with each other, building up reservoirs of hate and resentment that will give birth to even more sad and painful harvests in the future. 

And that is ultimately the greatest fallacy of all: that of using the excuse of wanting to exercise one’s faith without obstruction or interference by eliminating others from the discourse; by refusing to be in relationship with them.  And yet our faith calls for us to engage with others and to see in them not just God’s Love for them (and us), but God’s desire that we have fruitful and supportive relationships with all.

We cannot avoid relationship with others, no matter who they are.  God’s gift is that we have the freedom to choose to pursue that relationship, to nurture it to achieve all that it can offer us; or else to refuse to even try, and so limit ourselves, and thereby limit our ability to fulfill God’s call upon our lives. 

Peace,

– Allen

Copyright (c) 2014, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or gaining) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given. (e.g., via a credit that gives my full name and/or provides a link back to this site – or just email me and ask!)

Just a Slut

rush_limbaughIn the movie “Definitely, Maybe“, Dakota Fanning asks her philandering father the question “What’s the male word for ‘Slut’?” To which he sheepishly responds “They’re still working on that one.”

It’s sad that in this day and age, the slang word for a female who is suspected of having multiple intimate partners is still an accusatory, denigrating term (“slut”); while the nearest equivalent for a male denotes admiration or envy (“stud”).

Ultimately, this reflects the ongoing imbalance of power between men and women in this society.  While there has been steady improvement over the last century or so, our language, laws and social expectations still grant men dominance and marginalize the role of women in relationships and society; we are far from resolving the problem.

This dichotomy has been highlighted in recent attempts by some Christian leaders, and political leaders at both the State and National level, to cast the issue of reproductive rights for women as a “freedom of religion” issue.

In my own view, this is alarmingly disingenuous.  “Freedom of Religion” has always meant the freedom to practice ones’ own faith without interference from the state.  It does not include the right to impose ones’ religious beliefs on others, nor the right to practice ones’ faith in a way that causes harm to others.

Yet, this is what is being proposed by those who are using the “Freedom of Religion” argument in the current controversy, that I, as a person of faith, have the right to determine whether another person has the right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Or, to put it less grandiloquently, has the right to determine what is best for themselves.

So, which of the two trumps the other?  Should “Freedom of Religion” take precedence over our right to self-determination?  I think not.  To do so would push our nation in the direction of a Theocracy while turning the cry of “Freedom of Religion” into the perfect excuse for avoiding any responsibility or law that we find distasteful.

Continue reading “Just a Slut”

Absolute Knowledge

J Edgar HooverAs a recent New York Times video (about the event that proved J. Edgar Hoover was on a crusade to destroy liberal dissent) demonstrates, it is natural for those in power to view ANY challenge to their authority and/or policies as a threat.  It is not much of a step from there to justify the need to silence all who oppose their policies, even though (as one of the people in this video says) “dissent is the lifeblood of Democracy.”

So, one must reflect on how the legacy of Karl Rove & Dick Cheney, Richard M. Nixon, Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Albert S. Burleson (among others), proves that this temptation to squash dissent (rather than allow it to have a place in “the marketplace of ideas”) has a long and unrelenting history in this nation (let alone elsewhere!) and that preserving free speech is a never-ending and often thankless battle.

I should note that several people I know are mentioned in the FBI’s surveillance files from the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. Some (like my Dad) merited only a passing reference.  Others were the target of prolonged harassment and pressure, to try and silence them and/or to force them to name others as threats to the public order.

Our modern euphemism for such threats is the word “terrorist” – which is a term that has become fashionable in some circles as a label for any who dissent, used far more often than is merited.

So, in the current furor over Richard Snowden and the NSA’s spying activities, one must remember that the NSA has accumulated the largest trove of information and knowledge about the activities of millions of people that has ever been assembled – far greater than what the most repressive regimes in history were ever able to accumulate.  Whether Snowden is a hero of free speech or not, he is but one in a long line of those who have paid a great price for their attempts to shine a light in the dark corners of our government.

Can we trust that there isn’t a nascent J. Edgar Hoover somewhere within the Beltway who has access to this mountain of data?

I doubt it.

Knowledge is power.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Copyright (c) 2014, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or gaining) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (e.g., via a credit that gives my full name and/or provides a link back to this site). 

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict, A Call for Hope and Healing

Aziz is a warm, thoughtful, energetic man of peace whom I had the pleasure to get to know last year when I had the opportunity to tour Israel and Palestine (through a tourism company he helped establish named MEJDI), and hear the narratives of individuals on both sides of the wall that divides them, a wall not just of concrete and barbed wire, but a wall of shared misperception, mistrust, hate, pain and even greed.  If all that can be shared, why not also share healing and hope?

I urge you to read his words carefully and prayerfully, and hear the heart of a man who, even though a victim of great oppression and injustice in the land of his birth, loves all the peoples in that part of the world and earnestly desires peace and healing for those on both sides of the wall.

A Moderate Political Manifesto

I recently heard a Republican voter state in a radio interview that her primary goal is to “get rid of Obama”.  This same statement can be heard out of the mouths of many other Republicans – voters, candidates and power brokers alike.

Yet,  there seems to be a strong move within the Republican Party based on the premise that ideological purity is what is needed to carry the day and put America back on the right track.  An approach identical to that which the Republican Party adopted in 1964 when they nominated Barry Goldwater to oppose Lyndon Johnson, and which worked so well for them.

It would seem to me that our Republican friends, if they are serious about making Obama a one term president, would be seriously considering a middle of the road candidate, one who would appeal to independent and moderate voters.  Yet, candidates who might appeal to moderate voters – such as Jon Huntsman and perhaps Mitt Romney – are gaining little traction with those likely to vote in the primaries.  Perhaps this is why there has been so much interest by Republican power brokers to find another candidate, such as Gov. Chris Christie.

Personally, I am totally fed up with the politics in Washington.  While I think Obama had (and has) a lot of promise, he has shown himself to be ineffective as a leader, and has made some unforgivably huge gaffes, such as the recent tiff with John Boehner over when to schedule a Obama’s presidential address announcing the latest jobs bill.  A simple phone call would have gone a long way towards preventing such an embarrassing incident, and would have also at least provided some hope that the bill would be seriously considered by the Republican leadership in the House.

So, you’d think that the Republican Party would recognize that they have an opportunity to capture those many voters who are as disenchanted as I am.  It seems not.  Candidates like Herman Cain, and the antics of the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate over the last couple of years, lead one to wonder whether the Republican Party will focus so much on ideological purity that the concerns of the majority of Americans will simply be ignored.  — It seems they believe that their way is “right” and competing views are to be given no credence at all – I won’t draw parallels between this and the way other regimes have governed, but one can say in general that those who govern with such attitudes are not remembered with fondness, nor are their administrations considered successful.

So, will I support the Democratic Party in 2012?  No.  The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans – think of how Nancy Pelosi handled the House when she was Speaker.  But, I won’t be supporting the Republicans, either.  Instead, I’ll be looking for someone who really cares about the “little guy” and who knows that those who are unemployed, have seen their standard of living decline over the past decade, have huge medical and insurance bills, are facing losing their home, have burdensome college debt, are seeing their business or jobs threatened due to unfair competition from foreign manufacturers or unreasonable government regulations, face an an unfair tax burden, or have their kids attending failing schools, need to be heard.  We need a candidate who is pragmatic and doesn’t adopt extreme (climate change is a fantasy!!) inflexible (no new taxes!!) or ill-considered (don’t infringe on people’s right to carry automatic weapons!!) positions.  We need someone who understands that they and their party do not have all the answers, probably don’t even ask all the right questions, and believes it is critical to put the best interests of the nation ahead of ideological purity and political advantage.

So, who will I support and send donations to this coming year?  Not any of the national political organizations, nor any special interest group campaigning on a single issue.  — And I am boycotting companies and organizations that do.  Instead, I’ll put my money, and my votes, behind those who have shown they are committed to the principles I state here, and who do not have a vested interest in maintaining the combative and dysfunctional environment in Washington (and in many state governments as well).

 

Copyright (c) 2011, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via mention of my name on your site, or a link back to this site).

Radically Moderate

I lost a friend today.  An old High School friend of mine wrote to me via facebook this morning to tell me he was angry and insulted by the postings from some of my more liberal facebook friends.  Not only did he find those postings offensive, but went on to say that I appeared to him to be just as liberal, unbalanced and evil as them, and so he wanted nothing to do with me in the future, either.

I find this both puzzling, and sad.

Puzzling because a recent attempt of mine to become associated with an organization was derailed (at least in part) by some of its representatives who did not seem to believe that I could be appreciative of a number of conservative Christian organizations (that I’ve either worked-for or been a member-of in the past) and yet still consider myself a progressive Christian.  They seemed troubled by my refusal to denounce those organizations and what they stand for.  Instead, I emphasized the positive things that I found in them and my admiration and respect for the earnest and godly people that work for and support them.

So, I am apparently seen as too liberal by some and too conservative by others: I guess I must be doing something right.

What I find sad about my friend’s rejection, and about the other challenge I mentioned, is that in both cases I was dealing with people that I find to be dedicated, intelligent, wonderful human beings.   They are all very sincere and heartfelt in their beliefs and very dedicated to the causes they support.  There is nothing wrong with this.  In fact, it is a good thing.  Further, there are many things that each of these people consider to be heartfelt values that I also value.  In fact, I see more commonality in their respective values than I do difference.  My sadness here is because it seems that in both cases they do not see the commonality I see.  Worse still, there is a refusal to acknowledge that the “other side” has any legitimacy at all.  And so, rather than seeking to understand, respect and embrace their fellow human beings – something I believe the Bible teaches us we must do – they are both not listening to each other and are each seeking to cut off debate before it has begun.  They are both refusing to allow relationship to occur, perhaps knowing in their hearts that entering into relationship means taking the risk of being changed by that relationship.  In both cases, it seems they have decided that change is something they will not be open to, except on their own terms.  There is a refusal to learn and a refusal to appreciate that the spark of the divine exists in all of us, and needs to be valued by all of us.

Now, I want to be very careful in saying all of this – as I am sure I will receive critical comments both from those who are more conservative and those who are more liberal, each concerned that I am supporting the views of the other “side.”

What I’m getting at is that to me, there is no “side.”  We are all human, we are all pathfinders on this journey we all share called life, and we are all imperfect.  We need to support, learn from and share with each other.  We need to listen to each other, and we need to love each other.  We all stand equal before the divine, whether you identify your conception of the Divine with the term “G*d”, “Jesus”, “Allah” or “Brahman”.  For me to criticize the wonderful people I have worked with in the past would be, to me, a betrayal not only of my friendship with them and my appreciation of the wonderful people they were and are, but a violation of Christ’s command to love one another.  Similarly, I see both wisdom and willful blindness on both sides in the rancorous political debates occurring within our country at the present time.

All too frequently I run into folks who do not seem to realize that they are being just as obstinate, close minded and reactionary (in the sense of reacting before thinking) as those they condemn for being so on the other side of the religious and/or political fence.  It’s time to listen to one another, it’s time to show each other the radical love that God wants us as Christians to have for each other.  It’s time to moderate our own voices and listen to what our fellow human beings have to say.

We may not like the causes they espouse, but behind each person’s support of any cause are hopes, dreams and fears.  There are reasons why they feel those causes are legitimate.  What I have always found is that when one starts digging into those reasons, to see behind what is being said to find what is being felt, to really listen, there is much more that we share than not.  It is time to focus on that commonality and to act upon it, realizing that we cannot get agreement for the solution we see as ideal, but also realizing that we do not know the whole story, and that the only way to get a fuller understanding is to come to understand and appreciate why those we differ with believe as they do.  This is what the founding fathers of this country believed, and their wisdom has stood the test of time.

So, I will remain “radically moderate” – always (I hope) willing to listen, willing to learn, and willing to love.

 

Copyright (c) 2011, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via mention of my name on your site, or a link back to this site).

What’s in a Name?

My hometown, Brattleboro, VT, has built a new bridge across Whetstone Brook to replace the historic but long outdated “Creamery Bridge” (which will be turned into a pedestrian bridge).

Although there seems to be a consensus that some person should be honored by naming the bridge after them, there is much controversy over exactly who to memorialize in such a manner.  I hear that a very vocal group wants to name the bridge after a local man who gave his life in service of our country.  — A similar effort a few years ago resulted in a bridge in the center of town being named after a young man who died in (I think) Iraq.

I applaud and agree with the motivation behind the campaign to name the bridge after him, and have no objection whatsoever to honoring those who have served our country, particularly those who have had to put their own lives on the line while doing so.  (If anything, I think they should get far more recognition, honor and support than many or most of them do. Without them, the USA would never have become the great nation that it is.)   Yet, I have two significant reservations with regards to naming a bridge after a single fallen soldier.

The first is that we don’t have enough bridges!  Brattleboro, VT has perhaps a couple of dozen significant bridges in town (though some are Interstate Highway, not local, bridges).  Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Brattleboro natives have served in the military over the years; and many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.  Should we name a bridge for each of them?  What do we do when we run out of bridges?

Second, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from working with those serving in the military, it’s all about your buddies. Going into a fight, you are betting your life that the men and women with you, and supporting you, will “have your back” when the going gets tough.  That sort of complete reliance on each other to survive in the midst of battle is at the root of a camaraderie and trust that I have often heard those in the service speak about, but which most of us civilians will never experience.

In the center of town, on the “Common”, are a number of monuments. They list the names of those from Brattleboro who served and died in every war since the Civil War. What’s important to me about these monuments is that there are many names listed. A fallen soldier’s name is listed along all of his (or her) comrades in arms who died in the same war. The companionship that sustained them, and which more than a few gave their lives in battle-for is echoed in these monuments.  They are remembered together in death, just as they served together in life.   By having all of these heros memorialized and honored in one place, it gives us who pass by a chance to reflect on the dedication of the men and women of this town to serving our country, and the magnitude of the losses we’ve experienced in the fight to keep this country free.

Therefore, while naming a bridge after a single fallen soldier will honor that individual’s memory, and provides closure and solace to those they leave behind, it in effect dishonors the very thing that they and their comrades risked their lives to preserve – the lives of their fellow comrades in arms.   From what I’ve heard WWI, WWII and younger veterans all say when lauded for their service, I also think that most of those who have died while serving this country would be unhappy to hear that their sacrifice is being honored above the sacrifices of so many of their fellow servicemen.  Therefore, listing the fallen on a monument that honors all fallen soldiers from the same war together, and in a place where soldiers from all other wars are similarly honored, is (to me) much more appropriate, and provides a fitting way for us as a people to remember and honor those who gave their lives that we might remain a free and democratic country.

So, I ask the Selectpersons of Brattleboro to consider carefully whether it is appropriate to honor a single servicemen when naming this bridge.  Also, we must consider that the person we will memorialize through having their name on this bridge says something about who we are as a town, and what we think is important to be remembered about our community in years to come.  While every life is important, and the loss of even a single soldier in battle is a disaster to those who knew and loved them, no soldier (at least in this era) achieves victory by fighting alone.  Every soldier that has fallen was part of a community, a community they were fighting to preserve.  Let’s honor what they felt was worth giving their life-for.

For me, a bridge is about connection and community, about bridging gaps and making paths were no path existed before.  Therefore, whomever we name this bridge after should be a person whose life impacted Brattleboro in a positive and significant way, someone whose life reflected deep concern for the community, someone who worked to bridge gaps, and/or someone who built paths were no path existed before.

Copyright (c) 2010, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via a credit that mentions my name or provides a link back to this site).

Healthcare and Battle Fatigue

I may not be a conservative Republican, but I do respect and admire the opinions of thoughtful, balanced writers, no matter what their political stance. David Frum’s recent CNN column is a very well written and persuasive commentary on the damage the Republican party has done to itself in the healthcare battle, as well as some well reasoned suggestions as to where to go from here.

I agree with Mr. Frum on most of his points.  Healthcare is an accomplished fact, and the Republican leadership needs to accept that and move on.  Attempts to derail the legislation after it is signed into law may well have far-reaching negative consequences for the country as well as for the Republican party.  As Frum says, a more productive and probably more favorably received (by the voters) strategy would be to pass laws to fix those portions of the new legislation that are the most troublesome from a Republican point of view.  Blindly attacking the entire legislation is a strategy that is very high risk and which has already failed (probably at great cost to the Republican Party), and continuing to do so may well have additional major side effects.

I find it disingenious, for instance, that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is denouncing the new legislation as unconstitutional due to it’s requiring all citizens of the US to sign up for healthcare or face fines.  He seems to have forgotten that he was governor when the system upon which the new Federal Law was based became law here in Massachusetts, legislation that he championed as a bipartisan victory, and for which he lauded the Late Senator Ed Kennedy’s assistance in making it possible.  Does he think Democrats will forget this in the upcoming election cycle?  Romney’s claim will be great ammunition for any Democrat running against a Republican who makes the constitutionality of the new law an issue.

I also wonder, in this rash of Republican State Attorney Generals filing lawsuits to get the law declared unconstitutional even before it has been signed by Obama, if anyone has considered the consequences of such a legal victory (should it ever happen)?

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide that Federal Government programs forcing citizens to get insurance are unconstitutional, then does this impact Social Security, which is another Federal Insurance program that all citizens are required to sign-up for?

If not, then it will be because the new legislation forces citizens to sign up for private insurance, not a government program.  This will leave Republicans with the option of either taking responsibility for ditching healthcare reform entirely – not likely to win them many friends when millions of formerly uninsured Americans instantly lose their newly acquired protections; or else they will need to create a government sponsored insurance plan in its place – the very thing they spent lots of time and effort demonizing the current legislation for!

Finally, there is the issue of “battle fatigue”.  You can’t keep on whipping up the rank and file of your party into a frenzy on every major issue, especially if you keep on coming back to them with nothing to show for it.  Eventually they’ll get burned out and turn their back on you, or else they’ll go and look for someone else who is actually able to get things done.  As Frum says, the “All or Nothing” approach the Republican leadership is currently using is a negative, short term, high risk approach.  It is not a long term, strategic plan for positive change.  It can be effective, but is a weapon that gets “blunt” very quickly.

Frum’s column is one I think Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans should read.  He raises issues and questions about the new legislation that all of our representatives in Washington should seriously consider, and not just dismiss out of hand, or sweep aside in favor of a broad attack upon the entire package.

Liberals take note: there is intelligence on the other side of the fence!

Copyright (c) 2010, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved.  I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via a credit that mentions my name or provides a link back to this site).