As part of a makeover of their weekend edition this fall, the Wall Street Journal started running a new column called "Word Craft." Each week they have a different contributor weigh in with words of wisdom on the art of writing and speaking. Since I'm a big believer that you're never too old to learn, I usually try to make an effort to read what these craftsman have to say about how to communicate better.
About a month ago, the subject of the "Word Craft" column immediately captured my attention:
"Rules for Discussing the Meaning of it All" by Krista Tippett
Now at the time, I had no idea who Krista Tippet was or why she would have any particular expertise to offer guidance on so weighty a matter. But the notion that there could be a framework for talking about the meaning of life was intriguing enough to cause me to dive right in:
On my radio show, which covers issues of faith and moral imagination,
Before we go any further, see if you can guess who a radio show about faith and "moral imagination" (whatever the heck that means) would most likely be produced by. The answer will be revealed as we proceed.
I encourage my guests to follow a couple of ground rules: No abstractions about God, and speak in the first person, not on behalf of your group or tradition (or God). This makes statements of belief much more hospitable, easier to hear. A listener might disagree with your opinion on ultimate questions but can't disagree with your experience of them. There is a profound difference between hearing someone say "this is the truth" and hearing her say "this is my truth."
There's also a profound problem with a forum which requires participants to mollify their religious beliefs thusly. Christians don't profess that Jesus Christ is "my way, my truth, and my light." While such a watering down of faith might come off as more friendly and less likely to cause discomfort with others, it renders any serious discussion about religion impossible. Religion--real, serious religion at least--isn't about what I think the truth is based on my ridiculously short experiences on earth or my staggeringly limited knowledge and wisdom. It's a collective set of beliefs, values, and traditions that have been developed--at least in most cases--over hundreds and thousands of years and have been shared by millions if not billions of people throughout the world.
Since we started doing the show in 2003, this approach has worked well with a great variety of guests, from theologians and physicists to poets and police officers. Many of them do not consider themselves religious, but all of them have something to say about the animating questions behind religion, which flow beyond the boundaries of faith: Where did we come from, and where are we going? What does it mean to be human, and how do we want to live?
I've got a great idea. Let's have a radio show about religion where no one is allowed to offer an opinion unless prefaced by "I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just what I think…" and invite a bunch of people to come on who don't consider themselves religious. Riveting radio.
In my experience on the air, I have found that the best question for bringing a lofty or difficult conversation back to a usable place for the listener is: "What do you mean when you say that?" The more thoughtful answers almost always contain a story. And the most vivid personal stories have the most universal reach, elevating our sense of others and of the humanity we share.
In case you haven't guessed by now, Tippet hosts a show on National Public Radio called "On Being." NPR (and local public radio stations as well) must teach it's hosts the "What do you mean when you say that?" follow up approach to questions because it's a familiar query that you hear on show after show. It serves as a way to make the host appear thoughtful and as a method to deconstruct statements and introduce relativity.
"What do YOU MEAN when YOU say that?"
Guest: I believe that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will one day come again.
Host: What do you mean when you say that?
Guest: Um…well, you see Jesus was crucified, he died, and then he was…
Host: What do you mean when you say that?
Tippet closes with a summary that showcases the modern conceit that everything is so different now that the old questions we used to ask about religion and the old ways we used to discuss it are now hopelessly obsolete:
The complexities of our age—ecological and political, economic and social—have redrawn a range of basic existential and religious questions. The trick for us all is to create conversational spaces in which new answers can unfold. Using words wisely is essential to this effort, especially at a time when so many ideas related to human purpose have been reduced to blunt instruments in our public discourse. Shared convictions may elude us, but by learning to speak and listen in new ways, we can begin to live together and to look to the future differently.
The whole point of religion is that there isn't a need for "new answers" at all. You can change the questions and you can make new rules about how we're allowed to discuss it, but in the end the answer is always the same.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Your Horse
A remarkable evening like this in Minnesota calls for a little Robert Frost. Stoke that fire a little, grab your glass of single malt, a fine cigar, ease back in that leather Chesterfield chair and enjoy:
Powerful stuff. Some literary critics say this poem is about depression and suicide. I don't see it personally. Although getting accused of being gay by your horse is certainly no picnic.
Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep
Powerful stuff. Some literary critics say this poem is about depression and suicide. I don't see it personally. Although getting accused of being gay by your horse is certainly no picnic.
Snow Job
Wimps? Hippies? I can see how our reaction to a 15" snow storm might appear to be overly cautious from the perspective of a lilly inside the hot house of sunny Folsom, CA. (Whether or not that view is from the maximum security prison, we're still checking on). But as any Minnesotan knows, who's ever had to extricate themselves and their vehicle from a roadside ditch during a blizzard and/or below zero temperatures, there's very little in life worth risking in order to hit the roads in weather like this. Happy to kick back and watch the woods fill up with snow for a day, rather than have a white knuckle tour on the road for some mundane task of every day life.
As to the wimp factor, let me just point you to an example of who were are, from last night just before the storm hit. This is how a true Minnesotan handles the threat of a snow storm.
UNITED AIRLINES: YOU COLOSSAL PANSIES! YOU SNIVELING ASS CLOWNS! IT HASNT EVEN STARTED SNOWING AND YOU CANCELLED OUR FLIGHT TO PUERTO RICO!
The reports that the author of that Tweet has been in the fetal position mumbling about sun-drenched beaches and pina coladas since 11PM last night are completely unconfirmed.
Wimpy-Sota
First you elect Al Franken and Mark Dayton and now you're canceling radio shows because of snow? And todays Minnesota-UMD hockey game was postponed until tomorrow because of snow! Snow Days for radio shows and hockey? Oh, come on! Man up Minnesotans. You keep behaving like this and you might as well move to California. Damn Hippies.
Northern Alliance Radio Network Classic
Due to forces beyond our control, The Northern Alliance Radio Network is NOT back in full effect this morning, LIVE at 11AM (central). Due to overwhelming popular demand, last week's show will be played again. We hear the voice of the customer and we obey. So get ready to take a stroll down memory lane with another round of North Carolina vs. Kentucky from December 4.
Actually .... you will be hearing a basketball free edition of the Best of the Northern Alliance Radio Network. The blizzard of the century has sidelined your hosts and technical crew. At least for NARN, First Team. Mitch, due to his hardy North Dakota lineage, is en route via dog sled right now down I-35E and you *may* be hearing some LIVE NARN 2 today.
Representative-elect King "Landslide" Banaian has been rescheduled for an interview next week. Also next week, we'll be talking to Kevin Williamson of National Review, about his new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism. So if any of our audience is willing to stick with us after this now 3 week hiatus (!), we'll be back with a vengeance next week.
The Northern Alliance Radio Network is heard locally on AM1280 the Patriot. Streaming LIVE worldwide at the web site. Call in and join the action at 651-289-4488 (at least when live operators are standing by. Don't you dare miss it.
Friday, December 10, 2010
With A Cherry On Top
Don Cherry rips "left-wing pinkos" at council inaugural:
Cherry was Mayor Rob Ford’s pick for a “special guest” for the pomp-filled ceremony. Cherry turned up in a pink-and-white silk jacket and patterned tie that was eye-popping even for the famously flamboyant TV star.
The co-host of Hockey Night in Canada’s Coach’s Corner put the chain of office around Ford’s neck — something normally done by the city clerk--and then sat stoically, clapping as each of the 44 councillors got their ceremonial oaths of offices and posed for photos with Ford.
While Cherry is famously outspoken few, it seemed, were ready for the three-minute blast he delivered after being asked to make some remarks.
***
“I’m wearing pinko for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything, I thought I’d get it in,” Cherry said to a sharp intake of breath, then laughs and some claps.
“I’m being ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there — it’s unbelievable. One guy called me a jerk in a pink suit so I thought I’d wear that for him too today,” Cherry said.
He said he was made fun of for going to church and called “maudlin” for honouring Canadian troops.
“This is what you’ll be facing, Rob, with these left-wing pinkos — they scrape the bottom of the barrel.”
***
“Rob’s in the mayor (’s office) one day — an apology comes and a $5,000 cheque and that’s why I say he’s going to be the greatest mayor this city has ever seen,” Cherry said.
“As far as I’m concerned you can put that in your pipe you left-wing kooks.”
At least he didn't call them "chickens***" Swedes.
Cherry was Mayor Rob Ford’s pick for a “special guest” for the pomp-filled ceremony. Cherry turned up in a pink-and-white silk jacket and patterned tie that was eye-popping even for the famously flamboyant TV star.
The co-host of Hockey Night in Canada’s Coach’s Corner put the chain of office around Ford’s neck — something normally done by the city clerk--and then sat stoically, clapping as each of the 44 councillors got their ceremonial oaths of offices and posed for photos with Ford.
While Cherry is famously outspoken few, it seemed, were ready for the three-minute blast he delivered after being asked to make some remarks.
***
“I’m wearing pinko for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything, I thought I’d get it in,” Cherry said to a sharp intake of breath, then laughs and some claps.
“I’m being ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there — it’s unbelievable. One guy called me a jerk in a pink suit so I thought I’d wear that for him too today,” Cherry said.
He said he was made fun of for going to church and called “maudlin” for honouring Canadian troops.
“This is what you’ll be facing, Rob, with these left-wing pinkos — they scrape the bottom of the barrel.”
***
“Rob’s in the mayor (’s office) one day — an apology comes and a $5,000 cheque and that’s why I say he’s going to be the greatest mayor this city has ever seen,” Cherry said.
“As far as I’m concerned you can put that in your pipe you left-wing kooks.”
At least he didn't call them "chickens***" Swedes.
All He Wants for Christmas Is a Crisis
Since taking power, the Obama administration has operated under its former Chief of Staff's dictum to "never let a crisis go to waste". The wisdom of this approach, exploiting the nation's economic troubles for political gain, is dubious. If the most recent elections can be interpreted as a referendum on it, then the negative verdict is clear.
But no one ever accused the Congressional Democrats of being keen students of political history or current events. They are going one better than Obama. Why bother waiting for a crisis to exploit, when you can gin one up on your own?
From MPR, Rep. Keith Ellison on his preference to junk the Obama budget deal:
The budget deal includes provisions to keep unemployment benefits at 99 weeks, as well as preventing tax increases that would cost the average American household an estimated $3,000 annually. But Keith Ellison would like to scrap all of that, and cause a crisis, because he doesn't want those making $250K+ to keep their current tax rates.
Intentionally causing hardship for unemployed and middle class Americans, explicitly for the purposes of political spectacle and perceived partisan advantage.
I understand this may just be rhetoric, a little bomb throwing to excite the Progressive base. But if, say, Michelle Bachmann had called for the creation of a national crisis to further her ideological goals, there would special sections of the Star Tribune being printed to handle the coverage. Lefty web sites would be melting down with calls for her impeachment and/or arrest. Grief counselors would be dispatched to local union offices and college campuses to help those pulling out their hair and gnashing their teeth.
A little double standard to keep in mind for the next time your favorite Republican (whoever that may be) is condemned as crazy, extremist, unfit for office, etc.
But no one ever accused the Congressional Democrats of being keen students of political history or current events. They are going one better than Obama. Why bother waiting for a crisis to exploit, when you can gin one up on your own?
From MPR, Rep. Keith Ellison on his preference to junk the Obama budget deal:
I think that we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday.
The budget deal includes provisions to keep unemployment benefits at 99 weeks, as well as preventing tax increases that would cost the average American household an estimated $3,000 annually. But Keith Ellison would like to scrap all of that, and cause a crisis, because he doesn't want those making $250K+ to keep their current tax rates.
Intentionally causing hardship for unemployed and middle class Americans, explicitly for the purposes of political spectacle and perceived partisan advantage.
I understand this may just be rhetoric, a little bomb throwing to excite the Progressive base. But if, say, Michelle Bachmann had called for the creation of a national crisis to further her ideological goals, there would special sections of the Star Tribune being printed to handle the coverage. Lefty web sites would be melting down with calls for her impeachment and/or arrest. Grief counselors would be dispatched to local union offices and college campuses to help those pulling out their hair and gnashing their teeth.
A little double standard to keep in mind for the next time your favorite Republican (whoever that may be) is condemned as crazy, extremist, unfit for office, etc.
Beer of the Week (Vol. LXXXI)
Another edition of Beer of the Week brought to you by the sturdy folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help deliver all the wine, whiskey, and beer you need to make the holidays merry.
With December increasingly behaving more like January in these parts this year and with more snow and cold temps on the way, it’s a good time to stock up on the vital necessities of life, beer foremost among them. Not only do you need to make sure your SBR (Strategic Beer Reserve) is fully replenished, you need to ensure you have the right beer on hand. For example, Porter:
Porter is a dark-colored style of beer. The history and development of stout and porter are intertwined. The name was first used in the 18th century from its popularity with the street and river porters of London. It is generally brewed with dark malts. The name "stout" for a dark beer is believed to have come about because a strong porter may be called "Extra Porter" or "Double Porter" or "Stout Porter". The term "Stout Porter" would later be shortened to just "Stout". For example, Guinness Extra Stout was originally called "Extra Superior Porter" and was only given the name Extra Stout in 1840.
There are a number of excellent porters out there. One that I have not yet had the privilege of tasting until this week is Samuel Adams Holiday Porter:
A traditional, British style. Robust and full bodied.
Introduced as a member of the Winter Classics Variety Pack in 2004, Samuel Adams Holiday Porter, with its rich malt complexity, has become a favorite among our winter seasonal brews. In total, four types of malted barley are used in the brewing process including a variety of German malt called Carafa. This specialty malt, along with a bit of flaked oats, gives our Holiday Porter its smooth, roasted malt character. Add generous portions of imported hops to the mix and one has a brew that is both robust and drinkable.
Brown bottle. Festive label with a blue background and a holiday scene straight out Dickens' London. A strapping young gent is delivering a barrel of porter to an eager customer who bears a passing resemblance to Scrooge himself.
Style: Porter
Alcohol by Volume: 5.8%
COLOR (0-2): Dark lustrous brown, almost black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Roasted malt with chocolate, but a little light. 1
HEAD (0-2): Tan in color, good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted malt again with coffee and caramel flavors. Bitter hops with the chocolate once more at the finish. Full-bodied yet smooth with a creamy mouthful. Decently drinkable but a beer better suited to sip and savor. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Sharp and slightly bitter. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Porters are one of my favorite beer styles to enjoy during winter and this offering from Sam Adams nicely fits that bill. While it may not quite as much rich flavor as some other porters, it’s still a hearty and tasty treat for this time of year. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 15
With December increasingly behaving more like January in these parts this year and with more snow and cold temps on the way, it’s a good time to stock up on the vital necessities of life, beer foremost among them. Not only do you need to make sure your SBR (Strategic Beer Reserve) is fully replenished, you need to ensure you have the right beer on hand. For example, Porter:
Porter is a dark-colored style of beer. The history and development of stout and porter are intertwined. The name was first used in the 18th century from its popularity with the street and river porters of London. It is generally brewed with dark malts. The name "stout" for a dark beer is believed to have come about because a strong porter may be called "Extra Porter" or "Double Porter" or "Stout Porter". The term "Stout Porter" would later be shortened to just "Stout". For example, Guinness Extra Stout was originally called "Extra Superior Porter" and was only given the name Extra Stout in 1840.
There are a number of excellent porters out there. One that I have not yet had the privilege of tasting until this week is Samuel Adams Holiday Porter:
A traditional, British style. Robust and full bodied.
Introduced as a member of the Winter Classics Variety Pack in 2004, Samuel Adams Holiday Porter, with its rich malt complexity, has become a favorite among our winter seasonal brews. In total, four types of malted barley are used in the brewing process including a variety of German malt called Carafa. This specialty malt, along with a bit of flaked oats, gives our Holiday Porter its smooth, roasted malt character. Add generous portions of imported hops to the mix and one has a brew that is both robust and drinkable.
Brown bottle. Festive label with a blue background and a holiday scene straight out Dickens' London. A strapping young gent is delivering a barrel of porter to an eager customer who bears a passing resemblance to Scrooge himself.
Style: PorterAlcohol by Volume: 5.8%
COLOR (0-2): Dark lustrous brown, almost black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Roasted malt with chocolate, but a little light. 1
HEAD (0-2): Tan in color, good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted malt again with coffee and caramel flavors. Bitter hops with the chocolate once more at the finish. Full-bodied yet smooth with a creamy mouthful. Decently drinkable but a beer better suited to sip and savor. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Sharp and slightly bitter. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Porters are one of my favorite beer styles to enjoy during winter and this offering from Sam Adams nicely fits that bill. While it may not quite as much rich flavor as some other porters, it’s still a hearty and tasty treat for this time of year. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 15
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad
In today's WSJ, Daniel Henniger opines that while the tax deal, and President Obama's reluctant agreement and petulant reaction to it, may not be much of a tonic for the economy, it could be downright poisonous to Obama's 2012 reelection prospects:
But if an angry, let-me-be-clear Barack Obama just looked into the cameras and said he's coming to get you in two years, what rational economic choice would you make? Spend the profit or gains 2011 might produce on new workers, or bury any new income in the backyard until the 2012 presidential clouds clear?
No matter how much economic bump Mr. Obama gets in 2011 from extending the Bush-era tax rates, the 2012 election will be fought over a deep national anxiety that he rightly identifies but misinterprets.
The 1936 Democrats argue that America can't be strong again until what they identify as "2% of taxpayers" are dragged from their homes and punished. It's a stirring tale that is irrelevant to the immediate needs of a United States that has to compete in a global economy of intense and volatile competition.
In such a high-stakes world, Barack Obama's obsession with having it out over the tax tables is a vulnerability. His opponent in 2012 should run straight at it.
This deal has a LOT that's wrong with it and there are a number of principled and legitimate reasons for conservatives to oppose it. However, unlike some on the Left who secretly hope or even publicly cheer for a economic downturn when a Republican is in the Oval Office, I want the economy to grow no matter who will benefit politically from it. The pulse of the current recovery is faint and the last thing we need right now is an IMMEDIATE tax increase to slow it even further. Yes, a two year extension is not enough and won't bring a jolt of new life into the economy as a permanent extension would. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative which would be tax increases going into effect a mere three weeks from now.
Besides, as Henninger notes, if President Obama wants to reopen the debate on taxes just before the 2012 elections, he's going to fighting on a field where Republicans hold the high ground. If one of the major issues of the 2012 presidential campaign is taxes, Republicans will be ecstatic. Giving some ground in the battle today would be a small price to pay if it helps lead to the real victory then.
But if an angry, let-me-be-clear Barack Obama just looked into the cameras and said he's coming to get you in two years, what rational economic choice would you make? Spend the profit or gains 2011 might produce on new workers, or bury any new income in the backyard until the 2012 presidential clouds clear?
No matter how much economic bump Mr. Obama gets in 2011 from extending the Bush-era tax rates, the 2012 election will be fought over a deep national anxiety that he rightly identifies but misinterprets.
The 1936 Democrats argue that America can't be strong again until what they identify as "2% of taxpayers" are dragged from their homes and punished. It's a stirring tale that is irrelevant to the immediate needs of a United States that has to compete in a global economy of intense and volatile competition.
In such a high-stakes world, Barack Obama's obsession with having it out over the tax tables is a vulnerability. His opponent in 2012 should run straight at it.
This deal has a LOT that's wrong with it and there are a number of principled and legitimate reasons for conservatives to oppose it. However, unlike some on the Left who secretly hope or even publicly cheer for a economic downturn when a Republican is in the Oval Office, I want the economy to grow no matter who will benefit politically from it. The pulse of the current recovery is faint and the last thing we need right now is an IMMEDIATE tax increase to slow it even further. Yes, a two year extension is not enough and won't bring a jolt of new life into the economy as a permanent extension would. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative which would be tax increases going into effect a mere three weeks from now.
Besides, as Henninger notes, if President Obama wants to reopen the debate on taxes just before the 2012 elections, he's going to fighting on a field where Republicans hold the high ground. If one of the major issues of the 2012 presidential campaign is taxes, Republicans will be ecstatic. Giving some ground in the battle today would be a small price to pay if it helps lead to the real victory then.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Let's Make a Deal?
Gotta say that the most persuasive argument I heard for the deal on the Bush tax rates was Hugh's show today. The more he ranted, the less he persuaded me. I love him, but I think he is as wrong about this one as he was abooot Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court. (And whatever ytou do, don't mention "A Morman in the White House?")
As I understand it it, the decision had to be made soon in order to allow the government and business to put the new (or continued) tax rates into place before the First of the Year. More importantly, not extending the unemployment insurance around Christmas is simply bad politics. Do we really want to read those stories for the next few weeks? Is that how the new Republican Majority Congress wants the stage to be set for them? Weeks of stories on how Republicans callously sacrificed the unemployed in a bitter battle to save tax cuts for the super rich. Sure it would've been a lie, but it most certainly would've been effective.
So what's next? We get to have another debate about tax rates during a presidential election in two years? We get to watch Obama pledge - again - that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire? Seriously, I'd think we'd look forward to that.
But that's just me.
As I understand it it, the decision had to be made soon in order to allow the government and business to put the new (or continued) tax rates into place before the First of the Year. More importantly, not extending the unemployment insurance around Christmas is simply bad politics. Do we really want to read those stories for the next few weeks? Is that how the new Republican Majority Congress wants the stage to be set for them? Weeks of stories on how Republicans callously sacrificed the unemployed in a bitter battle to save tax cuts for the super rich. Sure it would've been a lie, but it most certainly would've been effective.
So what's next? We get to have another debate about tax rates during a presidential election in two years? We get to watch Obama pledge - again - that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire? Seriously, I'd think we'd look forward to that.
But that's just me.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
My Enemy's Disaster...
While I still haven't had time to fully reflect upon the wisdom of the tax deal that GOP leaders have struck with President Obama, I have to think that based on the reaction from the folks at MoveOn.org in an e-mail I received today, it can't be all that bad (despite Hugh Hewitt's wailing to the contrary):
Last night, President Obama announced that he's giving in to the GOP and extending the Bush tax breaks for the rich.
The "deal" he's proposing is an "absolute disaster," as Senator Bernie Sanders said.
But it's not a done deal. Leading Democrat Chris Van Hollen said yesterday that "House Democrats have not signed off on any deal," and last night Senator Sanders vowed to "do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation."
Senator Sanders and other progressives in the Senate are our best hope to stop this terrible deal. But Bernie can't do it alone.
The clock's ticking. Can you sign a petition today to leading progressives in the Senate—Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown (OH), Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer—urging them to stand up and use the filibuster to block this awful "deal"?
The Nihilist schemes: The only way this is a good deal is if the Democrats in congress hold it up. That would completely destroy any of the little mojo that President Obama has left. It would also prove that the Democrats would sabotage the economy to achieve their goal of punishing their enemies. That's a bad message to send, and it's why I believe the deal will pass.
It's not often that I agree with the pinkos at MoveOn (or Hugh, with his orange stained Cheeto fingers), but I see this as an awful deal for several different reasons. First of all, a two-year deal practically ensures another showdown near enough that people won't be able to do long term tax planning. I'd have preferred a deal of five years or more. Second, extending unemployment insurance at 99 weeks rewards inactivity. If 26 weeks is the normal term, I'd have capped this at one year. That's plenty of time to either find a job at your old rate of pay or adjust your rate to the new Obamaconomy. Third, the payroll tax holiday is a bad idea because it doesn't accomplish anything. It basically saves up to $800 to most working Americans, and a matching amount to their employers. Due to the short-term nature of this stimulus, it won't spur hiring or the economy. Meanwhile we've accelerated the deficit, and there will be a day of reckoning on that.
Last night, President Obama announced that he's giving in to the GOP and extending the Bush tax breaks for the rich.
The "deal" he's proposing is an "absolute disaster," as Senator Bernie Sanders said.
But it's not a done deal. Leading Democrat Chris Van Hollen said yesterday that "House Democrats have not signed off on any deal," and last night Senator Sanders vowed to "do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation."
Senator Sanders and other progressives in the Senate are our best hope to stop this terrible deal. But Bernie can't do it alone.
The clock's ticking. Can you sign a petition today to leading progressives in the Senate—Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown (OH), Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer—urging them to stand up and use the filibuster to block this awful "deal"?
The Nihilist schemes: The only way this is a good deal is if the Democrats in congress hold it up. That would completely destroy any of the little mojo that President Obama has left. It would also prove that the Democrats would sabotage the economy to achieve their goal of punishing their enemies. That's a bad message to send, and it's why I believe the deal will pass.
It's not often that I agree with the pinkos at MoveOn (or Hugh, with his orange stained Cheeto fingers), but I see this as an awful deal for several different reasons. First of all, a two-year deal practically ensures another showdown near enough that people won't be able to do long term tax planning. I'd have preferred a deal of five years or more. Second, extending unemployment insurance at 99 weeks rewards inactivity. If 26 weeks is the normal term, I'd have capped this at one year. That's plenty of time to either find a job at your old rate of pay or adjust your rate to the new Obamaconomy. Third, the payroll tax holiday is a bad idea because it doesn't accomplish anything. It basically saves up to $800 to most working Americans, and a matching amount to their employers. Due to the short-term nature of this stimulus, it won't spur hiring or the economy. Meanwhile we've accelerated the deficit, and there will be a day of reckoning on that.
Monday, December 06, 2010
The Home For Old Atomizers
Bob Shaw wrote an interesting article today in the St. Paul Pioneer Press about a government partnership with Catholic Charities to provide a place for homeless drunks to live. The unique aspect of St. Anthony Residence is that it allows its residents to drink on site. The program doesn't even attempt to stop them.
There, 60 men can — and often do — drink until they die. There are no counselors, no scolding, no 12-step programs, no group hugs.
Basically, these residents are poor souls that have nothing but alcohol. When that is all you have, it must be really annoying to have do-gooders pressuring you to give it up. Marion Hagerman's story is typical:
Hagerman has been drinking for 39 years. He drinks despite decades of lectures, prayers and punishment. He drinks despite two years of homelessness, six DWI convictions, six treatments for alcoholism and 13 months in jail.
What's ahead for Hagerman? The 54-year-old can see only one thing in his future — more drinking.
Of course, there are a whole bunch of Minnesotans that think this program is the worst thing in the world:
Some experts attack places like St. Anthony. "To me, a wet house is nothing more than a house of despair and death," said William C. Moyers, vice president of foundation relations for Hazelden treatment centers.
It sounds to me like Big Treatment feels threatened by an alternative that's proving to be a cost efficient use of government resources.
It's not uncommon for a homeless alcoholic to cost the public more than $1 million during decades of drinking — for multiple jail stays, emergency room visits, rounds of alcoholism treatment and other costs. But the costs and the suffering are greatly reduced once they arrive at St. Anthony.
The cost is estimated at $18,000 per person per year. The residence gives them a clean and warm place to sleep and a place to drink. Most residents resent the traditional treatment regimen:
They arrive as refugees of countless anti-drinking treatments. "Treatment is a bunch of B.S.," snapped Ricky Isaac, a three-year resident, as he drank a beer on the center's drinking patio. "Those AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) people make me sick. I hate hearing about other people's problems. I have my own problems. If you want to quit, you quit on your own."
They rebel against the chirpy optimism of abstinence-based programs: Try harder. Pray. Ask for help. Don't give up. We feel your pain. In contrast, St. Anthony feels like Death Row. The message is refreshingly grim: Everyone is going to keep drinking, it's probably going to kill them, and no one's going to talk them out of it.
"It's just so honest here," Hockenberger said. "I ask someone, 'Have you had a drink today?' and they say: 'Definitely! I wish I had some more!'
I have a real problem with forced treatment. If someone wants to change their life, they can be helped. However, most of these people are poor bums that don't want to change. Using government resources to harass them into changing their lives is inefficient, and potentially cruel. I don't think that this is the answer for younger, potentially employable men. However, that doesn't appear to be the target audience.
This is a powerful piece. Residences like St. Anthony may change the way we think about programs for severe alcoholics. Some experts on homelessness agree:
The St. Anthony model accepts the obvious — that a certain number of alcoholics are indeed hopeless, said Katie Tuione, program manager at Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul, a homeless shelter. "This is about meeting people where they are and loving them. It's not rocket science," she said. "They still grieve, love and hurt. They still need food and shelter. They are you and I."
Dr. Steven Miles, professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota, agreed. The reason to support St. Anthony is not the money saved but the kindness extended to the residents. "It is the humanity of it, just like humanity drives the hospice system," he said.
There, 60 men can — and often do — drink until they die. There are no counselors, no scolding, no 12-step programs, no group hugs.
Basically, these residents are poor souls that have nothing but alcohol. When that is all you have, it must be really annoying to have do-gooders pressuring you to give it up. Marion Hagerman's story is typical:
Hagerman has been drinking for 39 years. He drinks despite decades of lectures, prayers and punishment. He drinks despite two years of homelessness, six DWI convictions, six treatments for alcoholism and 13 months in jail.
What's ahead for Hagerman? The 54-year-old can see only one thing in his future — more drinking.
Of course, there are a whole bunch of Minnesotans that think this program is the worst thing in the world:
Some experts attack places like St. Anthony. "To me, a wet house is nothing more than a house of despair and death," said William C. Moyers, vice president of foundation relations for Hazelden treatment centers.
It sounds to me like Big Treatment feels threatened by an alternative that's proving to be a cost efficient use of government resources.
It's not uncommon for a homeless alcoholic to cost the public more than $1 million during decades of drinking — for multiple jail stays, emergency room visits, rounds of alcoholism treatment and other costs. But the costs and the suffering are greatly reduced once they arrive at St. Anthony.
The cost is estimated at $18,000 per person per year. The residence gives them a clean and warm place to sleep and a place to drink. Most residents resent the traditional treatment regimen:
They arrive as refugees of countless anti-drinking treatments. "Treatment is a bunch of B.S.," snapped Ricky Isaac, a three-year resident, as he drank a beer on the center's drinking patio. "Those AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) people make me sick. I hate hearing about other people's problems. I have my own problems. If you want to quit, you quit on your own."
They rebel against the chirpy optimism of abstinence-based programs: Try harder. Pray. Ask for help. Don't give up. We feel your pain. In contrast, St. Anthony feels like Death Row. The message is refreshingly grim: Everyone is going to keep drinking, it's probably going to kill them, and no one's going to talk them out of it.
"It's just so honest here," Hockenberger said. "I ask someone, 'Have you had a drink today?' and they say: 'Definitely! I wish I had some more!'
I have a real problem with forced treatment. If someone wants to change their life, they can be helped. However, most of these people are poor bums that don't want to change. Using government resources to harass them into changing their lives is inefficient, and potentially cruel. I don't think that this is the answer for younger, potentially employable men. However, that doesn't appear to be the target audience.
This is a powerful piece. Residences like St. Anthony may change the way we think about programs for severe alcoholics. Some experts on homelessness agree:
The St. Anthony model accepts the obvious — that a certain number of alcoholics are indeed hopeless, said Katie Tuione, program manager at Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul, a homeless shelter. "This is about meeting people where they are and loving them. It's not rocket science," she said. "They still grieve, love and hurt. They still need food and shelter. They are you and I."
Dr. Steven Miles, professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota, agreed. The reason to support St. Anthony is not the money saved but the kindness extended to the residents. "It is the humanity of it, just like humanity drives the hospice system," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)