Posts
Outrage followed the passage of SB1070, Arizona's tough new immigration bill. The reaction is in large part to wording in the bill around "reasonable suspicion" of a person's illegal immigration status, and that it can be used as justification for a police officer to demand to see proof of residency/citizenship.
The reason for the concern is simple; 'reasonable' is a decidedly subjective term, and immigration advocates are worried that it will open the door to racial profiling.
Last year I became a Legal Permanent Resident of the United States, which is to say I was issued a Green Card. After nearly six years in temporary worker status (prior to this I held an H1-B skilled workers visa) I had in my hands the Holy Grail and all the exciting freedoms that come with it.
Throughout the Green Card application process, I became intimately acquainted with all the nuances and peculiarities of immigration law, and believe me when I tell you it is a netherworld of forms filled out in triplicate, medical tests, biometric exams and disconcertingly vague Q&A sessions with lawyers, from which come far more questions than answers.
Much of the process is tiresome and feels somewhat unfair; a question on the application form asks whether one has ever been arrested. This to me seems prejudicial, surely the pertinent question is whether one has ever been convicted of a crime (although this question does come up later on); an arrest can be meaningless if it is mistaken, or worse, unlawful.
Other parts of it actually raise a smile, albeit a wry one. The same application form asks whether the respondent ever sent money to and/or worked for the German government between the years of 1933 and 1945. I was 32 at the time I filled out the form, so it would have been a neat metaphysical trick if I had had any dealings with the Third Reich, financial or otherwise.
A few questions later, one encounters perhaps the most memorably phrased question; "Have you ever engaged in or sponsored Genocide?". I had to pause before indignantly checking the 'No' box - there was this one time when my apartment had a really bad ant problem, so I took this kettle of boiling water and...never mind. Also, the word 'sponsored' tickled me; one can't help but think of sponsorship in terms of a 5k race in support of some kind of local charity (Would you care to donate some money to our cause, sir? We're almost at our target of $500 for the extermination of a competing cultural group. Sure, why not, put me down for a tenner.)
Following these two gems, there is also a question about whether the applicant is intending to overthrow the government by seditious means once inside the country. It would be admirably honest for someone to answer this question in the positive.
Obviously, I am making light of a serious process that causes considerable anxiety for many temporary workers. Over the course of the six years as an H1-B holder I built an entire life here and a denial of my Green Card would have meant the destruction of it all and my having to start over again somewhere else (contrary to many ill-informed anti-immigration activists, the H1-b temporary work visa cannot be renewed indefinitely - it's clear and unbreakable limit is six years).
The immigration system without doubt needs an overhaul, it is rife with inefficiency and redundancy and is still involves many paper-based forms that are complicated and repetitive. Processes need revising and much more clarity into the various stages of the application should be provided to the applicant.
There are also unnecessarily harsh penalties for mistakes. For example, if for whatever reason the applicant misses his/her biometrics appointment (where fingerprints, etc, are taken), the entire Green Card application is deemed as abandoned by the immigration service and has to be started again from the very beginning, wasting potentially years of effort and thousands of dollars.
This is why SB1070 is such a poorly thought-out exercise; just making it more risky for illegal immigrants to walk the streets in Arizona solves no problems at all. There are systemic problems that need fixing, ones that will remain so despite a police officer's ability to demand proof of legal immigration status of anyone he deems suspicious. It is also worth nothing that the requirement to carry proof of status is not unheard of; as a Green Card holder one is obliged to carry it at all times.
A common proposition made by anti-immigration voices is that US companies are less likely to employ American citizens because they can pay immigrants much lower salaries. This might be true of particular industries, but jobs that require a higher level of technical skill and education (i.e the most desirable, well-compensated ones) are certainly not being given to undocumented workers. For example, it is doubtful that the wage disparity between two doctors, one born in India and the other in Wisconsin, working at the same hospital is very large. Similarly, I can guarantee that you will not find an illegal immigrant working in the IT department of any reputable company. No such organization would expose itself to that serious a risk.
There are other, softer reasons to fix the immigration system, too. The cultural benefits of immigration are obvious and plentiful; in England in the mid-20th century, there was a huge influx of immigrants from Asia. Their presence immeasurably added to the richness and diversity of art, music and cuisine (and let me tell you, my beautiful country of birth needs all the help it can get in that last category).
Obviously, the flow of immigrants needs measures of control, but people from other countries do so much more than just work, they add vibrancy and color (pun somewhat intended) to our cities and bring with them the diversity that is the hallmark of the 21st century.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Religion & Politics - The Great Debate
It is often said that if a social occasion is to remain civil, two topics must be avoided; politics and religion. Recently there have been a couple of notable instances where it appears that in the minds of two prospective presidential candidates the line between the two is blurred.
Mike Huckabee, ex-governor of Arkansas and current Fox News host, was asked by reporters about the likelihood of him making a presidential bid in 2012. In reply, Huckabee said 'God hasn't told me yet'.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, after his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, said much the same thing when asked a similar question.
To some, these might be just throwaway comments, light-hearted in nature and almost touching in their simplicity. However, to secularists they are words that start alarm bells ringing and fingers drumming.
The first question that comes to mind is if either man is elected are policy decisions going to be driven by religious sensibilities? For example, would funding for certain programs be decreased (or increased) depending on whether they align with his/her personal belief system?
A real-life instance, albeit on a smaller scale, of religion coloring public life was several years ago when controversy raged over pharmacists in a number of states refusing to dispense birth-control or the morning-after pill. The pharmacists claimed that providing those medications ran counter to their own religious beliefs, so they felt compelled to turn away customers looking to procure them. Some of the pharmacists also said they thought giving out birth-control violated the hippocratic oath, although it's hard to not suspect that their religious convictions were the driving force, and it was merely convenient that an applied reading of the oath was available for use as a compounding argument.
Bringing us back to the religion-in-politics question, to the secular mind the concern is around the implications if the issues in question are broader than personal health choices, and the decision-maker is the President of the United States.
There will always be debate about religion's place in political discourse; to many believers, religious beliefs are an important contributing factor to the affinity they might feel towards a particular candidate, whereas secularists seek to exclude religion from any discussion of policy-making due to its intensely personal nature and tendency to undermine objectivity. Secularists bolster the legitimacy of this goal by citing the US Constitution and its mandated exclusion of religious influence from political debate.
When presenting any argument it is very important to acknowledge head-on the counter-arguments, research why and how they exist and apply, and then demonstrate why your point still stands in spite of them. In that spirit, a secularist must acknowledge that nowhere in the Constitution do the words 'separation of church and state' appear (just as any serious and thoughtful atheist must admit they cannot actually prove there is no God), there is only a warrant against religious conviction being a deciding factor in a candidate's suitability for public office, which can be found article VI. Even in the first amendment the exact phrase cannot be found, the wording is simply as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".
Whilst both of these pieces of text do not explicitly state that religion and politics are not to be mixed, the implications of their respective wordings are obvious. Religion is deemed to be something that exists within an individual's conscience and when making laws should not be a part of the input process. In the case of the first amendment, a crystal-clear statement just sixteen words long, two rules essential to the functioning of a free society are put in place; first, that the government has no say in what you believe (or don't believe), and second, that the government cannot enforce a particular religion or any of its practices.
The end result is the separation of church and state, since if the government is barred from influencing belief in any way, shape or form, freedom of AND from religion is established.
Secularism does not equate to atheism (although it is hard to imagine an atheist who is not also a secularist); there are plenty of believers who support secular ideals as they recognize 1), the diversity of the United States in its citizenry means that acknowledgement of one "official" religion is an impossibility, and 2) religion as an informer of policy puts us uncomfortably close to the beginnings of a theocratic system of government. Both of which could eventually result in persecution of those who hold different beliefs or, of course, none at all. It hardly needs mentioning that this was the main reason the founders of the United States left Europe.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779 and in it the ideals of article VI of the Constitution and of the first amendment are reflected:
"...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right."
The founders of this country knew that religion, whilst important to many, was entirely too divisive to drive public policy and took action in a variety of ways to ensure it did not. We need to remind our leaders of the lessons of our forefathers and always remember them ourselves.
Mike Huckabee, ex-governor of Arkansas and current Fox News host, was asked by reporters about the likelihood of him making a presidential bid in 2012. In reply, Huckabee said 'God hasn't told me yet'.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, after his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, said much the same thing when asked a similar question.
To some, these might be just throwaway comments, light-hearted in nature and almost touching in their simplicity. However, to secularists they are words that start alarm bells ringing and fingers drumming.
The first question that comes to mind is if either man is elected are policy decisions going to be driven by religious sensibilities? For example, would funding for certain programs be decreased (or increased) depending on whether they align with his/her personal belief system?
A real-life instance, albeit on a smaller scale, of religion coloring public life was several years ago when controversy raged over pharmacists in a number of states refusing to dispense birth-control or the morning-after pill. The pharmacists claimed that providing those medications ran counter to their own religious beliefs, so they felt compelled to turn away customers looking to procure them. Some of the pharmacists also said they thought giving out birth-control violated the hippocratic oath, although it's hard to not suspect that their religious convictions were the driving force, and it was merely convenient that an applied reading of the oath was available for use as a compounding argument.
Bringing us back to the religion-in-politics question, to the secular mind the concern is around the implications if the issues in question are broader than personal health choices, and the decision-maker is the President of the United States.
There will always be debate about religion's place in political discourse; to many believers, religious beliefs are an important contributing factor to the affinity they might feel towards a particular candidate, whereas secularists seek to exclude religion from any discussion of policy-making due to its intensely personal nature and tendency to undermine objectivity. Secularists bolster the legitimacy of this goal by citing the US Constitution and its mandated exclusion of religious influence from political debate.
When presenting any argument it is very important to acknowledge head-on the counter-arguments, research why and how they exist and apply, and then demonstrate why your point still stands in spite of them. In that spirit, a secularist must acknowledge that nowhere in the Constitution do the words 'separation of church and state' appear (just as any serious and thoughtful atheist must admit they cannot actually prove there is no God), there is only a warrant against religious conviction being a deciding factor in a candidate's suitability for public office, which can be found article VI. Even in the first amendment the exact phrase cannot be found, the wording is simply as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".
Whilst both of these pieces of text do not explicitly state that religion and politics are not to be mixed, the implications of their respective wordings are obvious. Religion is deemed to be something that exists within an individual's conscience and when making laws should not be a part of the input process. In the case of the first amendment, a crystal-clear statement just sixteen words long, two rules essential to the functioning of a free society are put in place; first, that the government has no say in what you believe (or don't believe), and second, that the government cannot enforce a particular religion or any of its practices.
The end result is the separation of church and state, since if the government is barred from influencing belief in any way, shape or form, freedom of AND from religion is established.
Secularism does not equate to atheism (although it is hard to imagine an atheist who is not also a secularist); there are plenty of believers who support secular ideals as they recognize 1), the diversity of the United States in its citizenry means that acknowledgement of one "official" religion is an impossibility, and 2) religion as an informer of policy puts us uncomfortably close to the beginnings of a theocratic system of government. Both of which could eventually result in persecution of those who hold different beliefs or, of course, none at all. It hardly needs mentioning that this was the main reason the founders of the United States left Europe.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779 and in it the ideals of article VI of the Constitution and of the first amendment are reflected:
"...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right."
The founders of this country knew that religion, whilst important to many, was entirely too divisive to drive public policy and took action in a variety of ways to ensure it did not. We need to remind our leaders of the lessons of our forefathers and always remember them ourselves.
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Goldman Opportunity
First, I would like to apologize for the excruciating pun that is the title of this article. That being said, the current SEC investigation of Goldman Sachs does so sweetly tee up President Obama's pitch for financial reform and provides him a free kick at punting it to the electorate, an advantage not available to him during the recent healthcare debate.
The story is as follows, the SEC is looking into allegations that Goldman Sachs was complicit in some extremely unethical trading practices by Paulson & Co, a hedge fund management company it contracted to advise some of its clients on investment opportunities.
The case focuses on Centralized Debt Obligations (CDO's), which are a type of financial instrument whose value is tied to an underlying set of assets. In this instance, the CDO's were "backed" by a set of subprime-mortgage bonds which had been hand-picked by Paulson & Co for inclusion in an investment portfolio. It is alleged that Paulson knew the portfolio was destined to fail and had in fact deliberately constructed it in such a way that the value could go nowhere but down. The health and value of the portfolio was misrepresented to clients of Goldman who were encouraged to put money into it. Traders at Goldman then "bet" on the housing bubble bursting and raked in colossal profits when it did.
Before we continue, l want to spend a brief moment on the concept of "betting" on stocks. This term is thrown around a lot and I don't have the deepest understanding of the concept, but I'll give explaining it my best shot. A stock is valued at $100 but I, as a trader, have information that leads me to believe the price will go down to $50 by close of business tomorrow. I approach an owner of the stock and 'borrow' it from them until that time in exchange for a lender's fee. I immediately sell the stock at the high price, then wait until the price drops the following day and buy it back. I then return the stock to its original owner (plus the lender's fee) and pocket the rest of the money. This is also known as 'short-selling' and, whilst the SEC doesn't mind the practice itself, problems arise when the market is deliberately manipulated.
There has been some backlash against the investigation with some analysts and commentators deeming it a waste of time and effort. Others, however, are happy to see a large financial house being called to account for its alleged irresponsible behavior. The investigation has gone global, too, with the United Kingdom and Germany starting their own inquiries (Germany, in particular, must declare a special interest; one of Goldman's clients most seriously affected in the scandal is IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, a huge bank that has had its own problems in recent years, receiving no less than two bailouts to keep it afloat).
Which brings us to the forthcoming financial reform bill, championed by President Obama. The SEC investigation provides a great opportunity for the bill's sponsors to frame the passage of the bill as a fight back against the big banks who had for so many years operated recklessly and without any proper supervision, crippling the economy in the process.
The details of the case are far more complex than the simplistic treatment I have given them here (I freely concede I have not even scratched the surface), but that is actually the point of this article. The case appears to be a simple matter of right and wrong; upon this basis it is easy to pick a side (I assume I needn't go so far as to point out who the bad guy is in this dismal piece of theater) and therefore easier for Obama to explain the necessity of reform to the electorate.
The President did not have this advantage when the healthcare bill was going through; according to polls, people were generally happy with their healthcare plan so there was noone to demonize.
The communication aspect of policy-making is almost as important as the policies themselves, and noone knows how to kill a bill through poor messaging better than the Democrats. They need to take some cues out of the Republican playbook, from which phrases like 'Death Panel' and 'Pulling the Plug on Grandma' so powerfully and memorably came. The task for the Democrats is this: formulate some lapel-badge-sized talking points and repeat them until voters are saying them in their sleep.
This time around it should be much more straightforward; people losing their 401ks because of rogue trading practices is very, very bad, so financial industry reform has to be a good thing.
Even the Democrats can't screw this up, right?
Authors note: Thanks to Adam Martin for his input on this article.
The story is as follows, the SEC is looking into allegations that Goldman Sachs was complicit in some extremely unethical trading practices by Paulson & Co, a hedge fund management company it contracted to advise some of its clients on investment opportunities.
The case focuses on Centralized Debt Obligations (CDO's), which are a type of financial instrument whose value is tied to an underlying set of assets. In this instance, the CDO's were "backed" by a set of subprime-mortgage bonds which had been hand-picked by Paulson & Co for inclusion in an investment portfolio. It is alleged that Paulson knew the portfolio was destined to fail and had in fact deliberately constructed it in such a way that the value could go nowhere but down. The health and value of the portfolio was misrepresented to clients of Goldman who were encouraged to put money into it. Traders at Goldman then "bet" on the housing bubble bursting and raked in colossal profits when it did.
Before we continue, l want to spend a brief moment on the concept of "betting" on stocks. This term is thrown around a lot and I don't have the deepest understanding of the concept, but I'll give explaining it my best shot. A stock is valued at $100 but I, as a trader, have information that leads me to believe the price will go down to $50 by close of business tomorrow. I approach an owner of the stock and 'borrow' it from them until that time in exchange for a lender's fee. I immediately sell the stock at the high price, then wait until the price drops the following day and buy it back. I then return the stock to its original owner (plus the lender's fee) and pocket the rest of the money. This is also known as 'short-selling' and, whilst the SEC doesn't mind the practice itself, problems arise when the market is deliberately manipulated.
There has been some backlash against the investigation with some analysts and commentators deeming it a waste of time and effort. Others, however, are happy to see a large financial house being called to account for its alleged irresponsible behavior. The investigation has gone global, too, with the United Kingdom and Germany starting their own inquiries (Germany, in particular, must declare a special interest; one of Goldman's clients most seriously affected in the scandal is IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, a huge bank that has had its own problems in recent years, receiving no less than two bailouts to keep it afloat).
Which brings us to the forthcoming financial reform bill, championed by President Obama. The SEC investigation provides a great opportunity for the bill's sponsors to frame the passage of the bill as a fight back against the big banks who had for so many years operated recklessly and without any proper supervision, crippling the economy in the process.
The details of the case are far more complex than the simplistic treatment I have given them here (I freely concede I have not even scratched the surface), but that is actually the point of this article. The case appears to be a simple matter of right and wrong; upon this basis it is easy to pick a side (I assume I needn't go so far as to point out who the bad guy is in this dismal piece of theater) and therefore easier for Obama to explain the necessity of reform to the electorate.
The President did not have this advantage when the healthcare bill was going through; according to polls, people were generally happy with their healthcare plan so there was noone to demonize.
The communication aspect of policy-making is almost as important as the policies themselves, and noone knows how to kill a bill through poor messaging better than the Democrats. They need to take some cues out of the Republican playbook, from which phrases like 'Death Panel' and 'Pulling the Plug on Grandma' so powerfully and memorably came. The task for the Democrats is this: formulate some lapel-badge-sized talking points and repeat them until voters are saying them in their sleep.
This time around it should be much more straightforward; people losing their 401ks because of rogue trading practices is very, very bad, so financial industry reform has to be a good thing.
Even the Democrats can't screw this up, right?
Authors note: Thanks to Adam Martin for his input on this article.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Benefits of a Classical Education
A minor throat-clearing before we begin; I cannot claim for my own any of what the title of this piece offers. I went to a mediocre university after an unremarkable performance at secondary school in England. I wasn't a particularly bad student; I was indifferent, middle-of-the-road; not sufficiently applied to my studies to excel but at the same time not courageous enough to rebel.
The study of Shakespeare and Dickens and James Joyce is unavoidable in the English education system and I drew very little from them at the time because it was a task to read them, not a pleasure as it has since become. I don't necessarily think I am significantly more intelligent at this point in my life, I think perhaps it's that now I am interested in more things. It is almost certainly a sign of age but I am now possessed of a desire to learn as much as I can about everything. Seriously, everything. At the very least I want to be able to contribute usefully to a conversation on any topic. A lofty goal, I concede.
Socrates defined intelligence as the realization of how little one actually knows. Of course, as a young man I thought I knew everything. I didn't think I needed to know Shakespeare because I didn't think it would have any value in later life. What I, looking back now, was missing is that the study of Shakespeare, Orwell, Russell, Joyce, Milton, Owen and so many others is not about their value (although it is handy to be able to pull out an obscure quote to reinforce a conversation point from time to time) but that they are worth reading for their own sake.
Orwell, for example, opens his books perhaps better than any other author. In 'Coming Up for Air', his most England-centric novel, the very first line of the first chapter reads 'The idea came to me the day I got my new false teeth'; if that doesn't make you want to read more you might want to check your wrist for a pulse. '1984' also has a memorable first line - 'It was a bright and cold day in April and all the clocks were striking thirteen'. One knows, in a single sentence, that one has been transported into a very different world.
Of course, there will be books that one intends to read but never gets around to. There are also those that one pretends to have read (Plato's Republic leaps to mind), but since there are only so many hours in a day and days in a lifetime, even if you don't get to them all there is, I feel, credit to be given for at least wanting to.
A mention of Plato brings us back to Socrates. If he is correct in his definition of intelligence, that it is the acknowledgment that we know almost nothing, then I hereby lay claim to the title of most intelligent man in the world.
The study of Shakespeare and Dickens and James Joyce is unavoidable in the English education system and I drew very little from them at the time because it was a task to read them, not a pleasure as it has since become. I don't necessarily think I am significantly more intelligent at this point in my life, I think perhaps it's that now I am interested in more things. It is almost certainly a sign of age but I am now possessed of a desire to learn as much as I can about everything. Seriously, everything. At the very least I want to be able to contribute usefully to a conversation on any topic. A lofty goal, I concede.
Socrates defined intelligence as the realization of how little one actually knows. Of course, as a young man I thought I knew everything. I didn't think I needed to know Shakespeare because I didn't think it would have any value in later life. What I, looking back now, was missing is that the study of Shakespeare, Orwell, Russell, Joyce, Milton, Owen and so many others is not about their value (although it is handy to be able to pull out an obscure quote to reinforce a conversation point from time to time) but that they are worth reading for their own sake.
Orwell, for example, opens his books perhaps better than any other author. In 'Coming Up for Air', his most England-centric novel, the very first line of the first chapter reads 'The idea came to me the day I got my new false teeth'; if that doesn't make you want to read more you might want to check your wrist for a pulse. '1984' also has a memorable first line - 'It was a bright and cold day in April and all the clocks were striking thirteen'. One knows, in a single sentence, that one has been transported into a very different world.
Of course, there will be books that one intends to read but never gets around to. There are also those that one pretends to have read (Plato's Republic leaps to mind), but since there are only so many hours in a day and days in a lifetime, even if you don't get to them all there is, I feel, credit to be given for at least wanting to.
A mention of Plato brings us back to Socrates. If he is correct in his definition of intelligence, that it is the acknowledgment that we know almost nothing, then I hereby lay claim to the title of most intelligent man in the world.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Unequal Protection under the Law
The bill name is HB 5473 and it seeks to do away with the current 30 year statute of limitations on child sexual abuse charges. Bishops in Connecticut are attempting to quash the bill and are hoping to enlist the help of their parishioners, claiming that it could open the floodgates for a crippling number of complaints against former and current clerical staff.
At the moment under Connecticut law, a complainant has thirty years past his or her eighteenth birthday to file suit. The new bill would eliminate this limitation completely and an official allegation of abuse could be made any time after the event is alleged to have occurred.
The important thing to bear in mind when thinking about the Church's opposition to the bill is that nowhere in the bill itself does it even mention the Catholic Church; it is focused purely on extending the deadline that those who have suffered abuse have to file charges against their abuser. In no way does it single out the Church as the intended target of the new legislation. Even so, panic has ensued.
My own feelings about religion aside, it is difficult not to ask why the Church has such a vested interest in seeing the demise of the bill. The Church states that the extension of the deadline paves the way for "frivolous" lawsuits that will hinder its ability to serve the community. Whilst I hate to lend any credence to the notion that unless the accused capitulates to any kind of test to prove their innocence they must be guilty of something, in this case (and in light of recent revelations) a cynical observer might posit that keeping the law unchanged would ensure the extent of child abuse in the Church remains unrevealed.
Opposition to the bill is not without merit, it has to be acknowledged. Attempting an accurate retelling of the facts of an episode in a person's life that occurred decades before is very difficult, and even more so with something as traumatic as sexual abuse. Memory is extremely susceptible to suggestion and there are many documented cases of false but persuasively detailed accounts of abuse at the hands of trusted family members or guardians. Often in these cases the seed is planted in the mind of the child by warring parents or irresponsible psychologists; the Church claims that those who would conjure up groundless claims against it would in this situation come in the form of unscrupulous lawyers.
Conversely, the mind has formidable power to repress certain memories of a disturbing nature. Both situations make allegations of sexual abuse one of the hardest things to conclusively prove (bar actual physical evidence, of course).
Yet one can't help but feel that the Church is trying to pre-emptively suppress further controversy and shame. If the Church is confident in its assertion that the abuse exposed in the last few weeks is limited to a small number of its flock then surely, safe in that knowledge, they should welcome any investigation to prove their claim.
In light of the recent letter acquired by the AP that implicates the then-Cardinal Ratzinger in at least a slowing down of the the investigation into Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who eventually plead no contest to allegations of child molestation, it is more difficult to believe that Church leaders have the good of the community in front of mind when considering how to address these allegations.
At the moment under Connecticut law, a complainant has thirty years past his or her eighteenth birthday to file suit. The new bill would eliminate this limitation completely and an official allegation of abuse could be made any time after the event is alleged to have occurred.
The important thing to bear in mind when thinking about the Church's opposition to the bill is that nowhere in the bill itself does it even mention the Catholic Church; it is focused purely on extending the deadline that those who have suffered abuse have to file charges against their abuser. In no way does it single out the Church as the intended target of the new legislation. Even so, panic has ensued.
My own feelings about religion aside, it is difficult not to ask why the Church has such a vested interest in seeing the demise of the bill. The Church states that the extension of the deadline paves the way for "frivolous" lawsuits that will hinder its ability to serve the community. Whilst I hate to lend any credence to the notion that unless the accused capitulates to any kind of test to prove their innocence they must be guilty of something, in this case (and in light of recent revelations) a cynical observer might posit that keeping the law unchanged would ensure the extent of child abuse in the Church remains unrevealed.
Opposition to the bill is not without merit, it has to be acknowledged. Attempting an accurate retelling of the facts of an episode in a person's life that occurred decades before is very difficult, and even more so with something as traumatic as sexual abuse. Memory is extremely susceptible to suggestion and there are many documented cases of false but persuasively detailed accounts of abuse at the hands of trusted family members or guardians. Often in these cases the seed is planted in the mind of the child by warring parents or irresponsible psychologists; the Church claims that those who would conjure up groundless claims against it would in this situation come in the form of unscrupulous lawyers.
Conversely, the mind has formidable power to repress certain memories of a disturbing nature. Both situations make allegations of sexual abuse one of the hardest things to conclusively prove (bar actual physical evidence, of course).
Yet one can't help but feel that the Church is trying to pre-emptively suppress further controversy and shame. If the Church is confident in its assertion that the abuse exposed in the last few weeks is limited to a small number of its flock then surely, safe in that knowledge, they should welcome any investigation to prove their claim.
In light of the recent letter acquired by the AP that implicates the then-Cardinal Ratzinger in at least a slowing down of the the investigation into Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who eventually plead no contest to allegations of child molestation, it is more difficult to believe that Church leaders have the good of the community in front of mind when considering how to address these allegations.
Friday, April 9, 2010
White Noise
Political discourse in the 21st century is an odd thing. It seems that rational argument, and argument based on facts and accurate comparison of historical events, is something that has been lost somewhere along the way.
Godwin's Law, formulated in 1990 when Usenet groups first became popular, states that the longer an online discussion goes on, the more likely one of the participants will accuse another of being a Nazi (whether the accusation is warranted or not). A variation of this appears to be happening now in political discussion, although the length of the discussion appears to be immaterial to the first instance of the accusation.
Newt Gingrich said yesterday that President Obama is the most radical leader this country has ever had, a statement he made in response to the deal signed by the President and the Russian premier Dimitri Medvedev pledging to reduce our nuclear capacity by 30%. Leaving aside the pure absurdity of the statement for a moment, the fact that it is so hysterical in tone renders it absolutely useless to a broader, serious discussion of policy. Sadly, this is an increasingly common trend.
Let me say right now, I am an issues voter. I am not aligned with any political party and come down on different sides of the ideological fence on different questions. For example, I am a sincere believer in small(er) government (a traditionally right-wing stance), and at the same time just as staunch a supporter of reproductive rights for women. The two beliefs, in the 21st century on opposite sides of the ideological divide, are actually perfectly compatible; what could be more "big government" than telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
What I am seeing in right-wing commentary right now is a lot of noise, and it's the noise that obfuscates the strands of accuracy in many (I can't, sadly, say 'all') arguments. On top of this, the Republicans are playing a very dangerous game with their historical comparisons. They lament with moist eyes the halcyon days of the Reagan administration (one can't help but think that somewhere in the works are bumper stickers that read 'WWRRD?'), whilst resolutely ignoring that Reagan was exactly aligned with Obama on deficit spending and reduction of nuclear capacity. One should always be careful when choosing one's heroes.
Whilst fringe voices make for much better soundbites, they do not decide elections. Independant voters are the key group in every election and if the Republican's want to win the next one, they need to provide a more considered communication strategy. I am not easily scared and don't respond well to being talked at. I don't like noise.
Godwin's Law, formulated in 1990 when Usenet groups first became popular, states that the longer an online discussion goes on, the more likely one of the participants will accuse another of being a Nazi (whether the accusation is warranted or not). A variation of this appears to be happening now in political discussion, although the length of the discussion appears to be immaterial to the first instance of the accusation.
Newt Gingrich said yesterday that President Obama is the most radical leader this country has ever had, a statement he made in response to the deal signed by the President and the Russian premier Dimitri Medvedev pledging to reduce our nuclear capacity by 30%. Leaving aside the pure absurdity of the statement for a moment, the fact that it is so hysterical in tone renders it absolutely useless to a broader, serious discussion of policy. Sadly, this is an increasingly common trend.
Let me say right now, I am an issues voter. I am not aligned with any political party and come down on different sides of the ideological fence on different questions. For example, I am a sincere believer in small(er) government (a traditionally right-wing stance), and at the same time just as staunch a supporter of reproductive rights for women. The two beliefs, in the 21st century on opposite sides of the ideological divide, are actually perfectly compatible; what could be more "big government" than telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
What I am seeing in right-wing commentary right now is a lot of noise, and it's the noise that obfuscates the strands of accuracy in many (I can't, sadly, say 'all') arguments. On top of this, the Republicans are playing a very dangerous game with their historical comparisons. They lament with moist eyes the halcyon days of the Reagan administration (one can't help but think that somewhere in the works are bumper stickers that read 'WWRRD?'), whilst resolutely ignoring that Reagan was exactly aligned with Obama on deficit spending and reduction of nuclear capacity. One should always be careful when choosing one's heroes.
Whilst fringe voices make for much better soundbites, they do not decide elections. Independant voters are the key group in every election and if the Republican's want to win the next one, they need to provide a more considered communication strategy. I am not easily scared and don't respond well to being talked at. I don't like noise.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Elevator Pitch
In an exceptional and thought-provoking article on the future of the United States in the January/February issue of the Atlantic, James Fallows entreated our political leaders to think about policy as if when we wake up tomorrow, it is seventy-five years in the future. This is, it scarcely needs to be explained, to guard against the tendency of politicians these days to make policy decisions in terms of a single electoral cycle. Just as businesses now measure success and value by the quarter, our leaders are only thinking as far out as the next election or, more worryingly, the next morning's headlines.
Compounding the problem, news outlets provide 24-hour coverage and thus have a lot more column inches and airtime to fill. This means they are more inclined to provide minute-by-minute updates on issues whose true movement along the path to resolution is more akin to an oil tanker than a formula one race car. The result is a perception that inadequate progress is being made.
Whilst this is a jab at both our leaders and our news media, it could also be read as just as harsh an indictment of the electorate. Underlying all this short-term operating is the short-term nature of our collective attention span and an unwillingness to think beyond the immediate. If there is a problem, it needs to be fixed and fixed right away. Our leaders are then forced to act to satisfy this need and when results aren't instantly forthcoming, frustration and public outcry quickly follow.
The hallmark of the 21st century is instant gratification and is what we as citizens have come to expect; increasingly our lives are lived on-demand and our thinking is trending in the same direction. Most problems that confront the world today, however, cannot be solved in the short-term. They are extremely complex and progress towards solutions is exceptionally fragile. It is incumbent upon us as voters to understand this and adjust our expectations. A writer far better than I once wrote that all politics is local, which is true, but that does not reduce the complexity.
Going by recent statistics, we are working our way steadily (but slowly, gulp!) out of the most serious economic slowdown since the Great Depression, and it is worth remembering that it took more than 10 years for the country to recover in the aftermath of that calamity. The expectation today is that we should already be back on top but this is simply unrealistic and contributes to additional anxiety. Ignoring the realities of our political system does little else than create more stress that none of us need.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Two Nations Divided
First described as 'special' by Winston Churchill in his 'Iron Curtain' speech of 1946, the relationship between the leaders of the United States and Great Britain has been changing over the last year. The warm bond between George W. Bush and Tony Blair has been replaced by the distinctly cooler interactions of Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, starting last year with a profoundly over-analyzed exchange of gifts upon Obama's assumption of his presidential duties. The Prime Minister brought a hand-carved pen fashioned from the timbers of a sunken slave ship, and the President brought a set of 25 DVDs.
This, despite the British press' best efforts to whip up a storm of controversy, was a non-event, as was the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office, a decorative piece loaned to Bush a number of years ago. As respected a statesman as Churchill is (and I do have a soft spot for the old soak myself, if not just for his quotability), I wouldn't want his craggy countenance casting its admonishing squint in my direction every moment of every working day.
With the UK General Election officially called and due to take place on May 6, the relationship looks set to continue long the same path. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party and according to some polls likely to be the next PM, spoke recently of the imbalance of power in the US/UK partnership and called for a change in focus, calling Great Britain the "junior partner" of the US and saying that what is needed for the UK now and in the future is more attention paid to domestic issues, and less time spent on trying to be the global BFF of the EU and the United States.
This, despite the British press' best efforts to whip up a storm of controversy, was a non-event, as was the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office, a decorative piece loaned to Bush a number of years ago. As respected a statesman as Churchill is (and I do have a soft spot for the old soak myself, if not just for his quotability), I wouldn't want his craggy countenance casting its admonishing squint in my direction every moment of every working day.
With the UK General Election officially called and due to take place on May 6, the relationship looks set to continue long the same path. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party and according to some polls likely to be the next PM, spoke recently of the imbalance of power in the US/UK partnership and called for a change in focus, calling Great Britain the "junior partner" of the US and saying that what is needed for the UK now and in the future is more attention paid to domestic issues, and less time spent on trying to be the global BFF of the EU and the United States.
To a casual observer, this might seem to be transparent and cynical electioneering, capitalizing on a widespread feeling in Britain that her leaders are more like absentee landlords than public servants. The deeply unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly hostile feelings towards the EU (compounded by the recent difficulties with the Greek economy), immigration policy that on the surface appears to be without any kind of oversight and myriad other issues are resulting in an electorate who feels those who are supposed to be working in their best interests are more preoccupied with currying favor on the international stage.
This cooling of affection between the two countries is not without precedent, however; after the ideological and personal love-fest that was the Thatcher/Reagan relationship, there was marked reservation of warmth during the Major/Clinton years, only to be followed by the resumption of moisture and fuzziness between Bush and Blair. With interests and worldview still so closely aligned despite the call for a shift in priorities, one can't see the US and UK de-friending each other any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
