Religious battle for the Oval Office
Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.
Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.
Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.
Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!
Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.
Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.
Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.
While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”
As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.
Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.
You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.
According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”
As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?
Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.
As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.
Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.
Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."
What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Golden Compass: Pointing kids to atheism?
A really dangerous series of books has become popular. The first book is so innocuous that many people give it to their children. The tale begins with a couple of innocent kids exploring the simple goodness of the world around them. Soon they find out that humans are not alone in the universe, and that there are other realms we cannot see. They discover that their world is full of warring factions, evil spirits, armies of good and bad angels, conniving witches, greedy kings and corrupt religious establishments. The series reaches a furious climax with the characters committing the most heinous act you can imagine: They kill God.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Barbie poisoning
I remember the year I eased the Barbie ban. It started with a lazy holiday shrug, and ended with a dozen naked plastic bodies strewn about the house.
I never bought a Barbie myself. Yet, a few years and a few children later, the Barbie population in our house surged beyond a hundred. Not that anyone has performed an actual census. You could take a sample count of a square-foot area of carpet and extrapolate from there. At one point I gathered them into three large plastic tubs and “lost” them in the basement. More Barbies quickly appeared to take their place.
I’ve overcome the impulse to rampage through the house forcing tiny shirts over those matted blond pony tails. In fact, I rarely notice the dolls anymore. I nudge wafer-thin naked bodies aside as I wade through the little girls’ bedroom in search of the last diaper in the house. I nonchalantly toss Barbies out of the shoe bin as I search for the other Tinkerbell tennis shoe.
The problems that bother me today are not the same ones that bothered me years ago. For example, I’ve grown accustomed to Barbie’s unattainable figure. At one time critics claimed the doll would be 5’-9” tall and 110 pounds if she were a real live woman.
In recent years, Mattel remodeled Barbie’s figure to look more like that of a teen. It’s not that they were concerned about the rates of anorexia on catwalks or in high schools, or the record number of adult women seeking breast augmentation. Rather, it was a response to the whims of fashion.
“In order for the hip-huggers to look right, Barbie needs to be more like a teen’s body,” Mattel spokesperson Lisa McKendall told Mother Jones magazine before the 1997 change. “The fashions teens wear now don’t fit properly on our current sculpting.”
That’s the nice thing about plastic bodies, I suppose. They can be re-sculpted to fit the clothes. Thus, Barbie’s breasts were pared down, her waist thickened a tad, and her hips made even narrower.
Barbie has become more diverse as well as (slightly) more realistic. The platinum blond hair has been varied with auburn, brown, black, and shades of gold. Various skin tones and even different facial features now adorn the dolls.
Before her recent conversion to a teen, Barbie ventured into careers that would make any feminist proud. She enjoyed stints as an astronaut, a doctor, a paleontologist, and a presidential candidate.
So what’s my beef with Barbie? I don’t think she’s very American. When 675,000 Barbie accessories were recalled due to lead paint applied in China, I picked up one those naked dolls and looked at the stamp on Barbie’s backside: Made in China.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie and owner of Fisher-Price, is the largest toy company in America. Lately Mattel has been in the news not because of a hot must-have Christmas toy, but because of tainted toys made in China.
So far, Mattel has paid $975,000 this year alone for failing to report safety hazards and recalled over ten million toys. The safety hazard, typically consist of lead paint or dangerous magnets.
One of the recalled toys is Barbie’s dog Tanner. Tanner eats and poops plastic-coated metal dog biscuits. Barbie picks them up with her magnetic pooper-scooper and deposits them into the trash can -- which is also the dog biscuit dispenser!
As if recycled poop biscuits were not enough reason to recall Tanner, the tiny magnets are a major safety hazard to young children who swallow them. When two or more magnets become lodged in different sections of the intestines, they may stick together to the point of perforating of the intestines. The recalled toys, including Barbie’s biscuit-eating dog, have frequently been of Chinese manufacture.
Barbie is not alone. Approximately 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. One reason Chinese goods dominate the world market is that the Chinese government artificially devalues its currency to make its products the cheapest in the world. As China takes over whole industries, local manufacturers either outsource to China or go out of business, making those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods.
Just imagine the cycle. Every Christmas, American parents fill their children’s stockings with cheap plastic junk made in China. Meanwhile, many of these same parents are losing their jobs because they cannot compete with the cheap labor of China.
Outsourcing causes inflation-adjusted wages to fall here in America, further ensuring that Americans can only afford to put cheap plastic toys under the tree. Factor in the lead poisoning of our children -- which can lead to lower IQs, physical and mental disabilities and decreased career success long-term -- and you have the makings of a very ugly downward spiral.
What’s the antidote to Barbie poisoning? It starts with buying American-made toys. If “buy American” sounds passé, it is not just because Chinese toy makers have lulled us into a lead-paint stupor. The fact is that American-made goods are more expensive. A quick search online reveals that natural toys made with wood and non-toxic paint cost several times what we expect to pay for cheap Chinese junk.
It is time to remember the old adage, “You get what you pay for.” Opt for fewer gifts of higher quality. In the long run, quality gifts have more character and last longer.
The U.S. government has a responsibility to test every child in America for lead poisoning. There are now so many tainted toys in so many millions of homes, that recalls cannot possibly be effective in getting the lead out of America’s nurseries.
Testing is urgent because lead poisoning is cumulative. The longer the duration of the exposure, the greater the brain damage will be. There are medications to treat lead poisoning, but the most important aspect of treatment is removing the lead source.
Health departments, schools and daycares should provide the venue for free screening to determine which children need treatment and which toy boxes need to be purged. Mattel and other violators should pay for the cost of the testing and treatment.
Finally, the importers must be held accountable. We cannot regulate Chinese companies, but we can regulate Mattel. Importers should be required to prove their goods meet the same standards as American-made goods.
Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not have access to Chinese manufacturers, accountability must happen within our borders. Importers should be required to submit to independent testing on a regular basis. The CPSC, which has been rendered somewhat toothless by Republican administrations, should have authority (and funding) to drop in at any store or distribution point, and test at random. The CPSC should impose penalties that serve not only to punish and deter, but also to clean up and compensate for violations.
A side benefit of import compliance is that it will somewhat neutralize the cost differential between imports and domestic goods. Apparently lead paint, antifreeze, and other toxic ingredients are cheap and plentiful in China. Currently American manufacturers must spend more than Chinese manufacturers to comply with safety regulations. Holding importers to the same standards will level the playing field.
When China is no longer so much cheaper, manufacturing jobs will return to America. Perhaps even Barbie will come home.
I never bought a Barbie myself. Yet, a few years and a few children later, the Barbie population in our house surged beyond a hundred. Not that anyone has performed an actual census. You could take a sample count of a square-foot area of carpet and extrapolate from there. At one point I gathered them into three large plastic tubs and “lost” them in the basement. More Barbies quickly appeared to take their place.
I’ve overcome the impulse to rampage through the house forcing tiny shirts over those matted blond pony tails. In fact, I rarely notice the dolls anymore. I nudge wafer-thin naked bodies aside as I wade through the little girls’ bedroom in search of the last diaper in the house. I nonchalantly toss Barbies out of the shoe bin as I search for the other Tinkerbell tennis shoe.
The problems that bother me today are not the same ones that bothered me years ago. For example, I’ve grown accustomed to Barbie’s unattainable figure. At one time critics claimed the doll would be 5’-9” tall and 110 pounds if she were a real live woman.
In recent years, Mattel remodeled Barbie’s figure to look more like that of a teen. It’s not that they were concerned about the rates of anorexia on catwalks or in high schools, or the record number of adult women seeking breast augmentation. Rather, it was a response to the whims of fashion.
“In order for the hip-huggers to look right, Barbie needs to be more like a teen’s body,” Mattel spokesperson Lisa McKendall told Mother Jones magazine before the 1997 change. “The fashions teens wear now don’t fit properly on our current sculpting.”
That’s the nice thing about plastic bodies, I suppose. They can be re-sculpted to fit the clothes. Thus, Barbie’s breasts were pared down, her waist thickened a tad, and her hips made even narrower.
Barbie has become more diverse as well as (slightly) more realistic. The platinum blond hair has been varied with auburn, brown, black, and shades of gold. Various skin tones and even different facial features now adorn the dolls.
Before her recent conversion to a teen, Barbie ventured into careers that would make any feminist proud. She enjoyed stints as an astronaut, a doctor, a paleontologist, and a presidential candidate.
So what’s my beef with Barbie? I don’t think she’s very American. When 675,000 Barbie accessories were recalled due to lead paint applied in China, I picked up one those naked dolls and looked at the stamp on Barbie’s backside: Made in China.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie and owner of Fisher-Price, is the largest toy company in America. Lately Mattel has been in the news not because of a hot must-have Christmas toy, but because of tainted toys made in China.
So far, Mattel has paid $975,000 this year alone for failing to report safety hazards and recalled over ten million toys. The safety hazard, typically consist of lead paint or dangerous magnets.
One of the recalled toys is Barbie’s dog Tanner. Tanner eats and poops plastic-coated metal dog biscuits. Barbie picks them up with her magnetic pooper-scooper and deposits them into the trash can -- which is also the dog biscuit dispenser!
As if recycled poop biscuits were not enough reason to recall Tanner, the tiny magnets are a major safety hazard to young children who swallow them. When two or more magnets become lodged in different sections of the intestines, they may stick together to the point of perforating of the intestines. The recalled toys, including Barbie’s biscuit-eating dog, have frequently been of Chinese manufacture.
Barbie is not alone. Approximately 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. One reason Chinese goods dominate the world market is that the Chinese government artificially devalues its currency to make its products the cheapest in the world. As China takes over whole industries, local manufacturers either outsource to China or go out of business, making those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods.
Just imagine the cycle. Every Christmas, American parents fill their children’s stockings with cheap plastic junk made in China. Meanwhile, many of these same parents are losing their jobs because they cannot compete with the cheap labor of China.
Outsourcing causes inflation-adjusted wages to fall here in America, further ensuring that Americans can only afford to put cheap plastic toys under the tree. Factor in the lead poisoning of our children -- which can lead to lower IQs, physical and mental disabilities and decreased career success long-term -- and you have the makings of a very ugly downward spiral.
What’s the antidote to Barbie poisoning? It starts with buying American-made toys. If “buy American” sounds passé, it is not just because Chinese toy makers have lulled us into a lead-paint stupor. The fact is that American-made goods are more expensive. A quick search online reveals that natural toys made with wood and non-toxic paint cost several times what we expect to pay for cheap Chinese junk.
It is time to remember the old adage, “You get what you pay for.” Opt for fewer gifts of higher quality. In the long run, quality gifts have more character and last longer.
The U.S. government has a responsibility to test every child in America for lead poisoning. There are now so many tainted toys in so many millions of homes, that recalls cannot possibly be effective in getting the lead out of America’s nurseries.
Testing is urgent because lead poisoning is cumulative. The longer the duration of the exposure, the greater the brain damage will be. There are medications to treat lead poisoning, but the most important aspect of treatment is removing the lead source.
Health departments, schools and daycares should provide the venue for free screening to determine which children need treatment and which toy boxes need to be purged. Mattel and other violators should pay for the cost of the testing and treatment.
Finally, the importers must be held accountable. We cannot regulate Chinese companies, but we can regulate Mattel. Importers should be required to prove their goods meet the same standards as American-made goods.
Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not have access to Chinese manufacturers, accountability must happen within our borders. Importers should be required to submit to independent testing on a regular basis. The CPSC, which has been rendered somewhat toothless by Republican administrations, should have authority (and funding) to drop in at any store or distribution point, and test at random. The CPSC should impose penalties that serve not only to punish and deter, but also to clean up and compensate for violations.
A side benefit of import compliance is that it will somewhat neutralize the cost differential between imports and domestic goods. Apparently lead paint, antifreeze, and other toxic ingredients are cheap and plentiful in China. Currently American manufacturers must spend more than Chinese manufacturers to comply with safety regulations. Holding importers to the same standards will level the playing field.
When China is no longer so much cheaper, manufacturing jobs will return to America. Perhaps even Barbie will come home.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
It's called democracy
A group of men sat down to fire off a letter to some politicians who were overstepping their bounds. Searching for the perfect phrase, Benjamin Franklin borrowed the words of his Italian friend, Phillip Mazzei. He wrote, “All men are created equal.”
The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.
Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?
Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.
The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.
Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.
We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.
Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.
They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.
The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.
As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.
For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.
The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.
You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”
It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.
But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.
It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.
It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.
Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.
Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.
We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.
The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.
Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?
Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.
The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.
Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.
We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.
Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.
They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.
The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.
As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.
For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.
The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.
You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”
It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.
But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.
It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.
It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.
Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.
Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.
We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Say no to the GREAT big tax
Georgia GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson was upset when he saw his property tax bills, which totaled over $13,000. Richardson has a plan to avoid paying those taxes. He calls it the GREAT Plan, which stands for Georgia Repeals Every Ad Valorem Tax. (No one said he could spell.)
Currently the county collects ad valorem taxes on the value of our homes, cars, boats, barns, trailers and other big valuables. Those who drive a BMW and live in a mansion pay more than those who drive a Geo and own a 3-bedroom house. These taxes support our local government and schools.
Richardson’s proposal strips these funds from the county. Schools and local governments will have to go to Atlanta for every dime. The state will raise the funds through a sales tax on everything imaginable. Not only will we pay sales tax for fuel, clothes, cars and houses. We will also pay tax on bread, milk, medicine, and doctor visits.
The additional sales tax will cost Georgia businesses their competitive edge. Shops located near state lines will be impacted first. The revenue we currently enjoy from Tennessee, Alabama and Florida residents will evaporate.
Even Georgians will try not to buy here. No one wants to pay more when they can simply cross the state line (or log onto the Internet) to save money. People with means will buy everything from auto parts to clothing from out-of-state companies. The poor, who must buy locally, will be cut deepest by Richardson’s scheme.
As sales fall, the legislature must raise the tax rate to replace the lost revenue. As the tax rises, sales will fall more, and the tax must be raised higher – which will cause sales to fall even more, and so on. It’s a death spiral for the economy.
Even if the legislature holds the state sales tax at 4%, we end up paying a much higher tax because each item is taxed multiple times as it moves through manufacturing and distribution channels. You see, goods for resale will no longer be tax exempt.
The GREAT big tax deals Georgia manufacturers a devastating blow. Manufacturers who pay sales tax for raw materials and supplies cannot possibly compete with untaxed manufacturers in other states. Many will limp across state lines and reestablish business there – leaving behind empty buildings and thousands upon thousands of lost jobs.
Businesses that remain in Georgia will source their goods from manufacturers in other states, unless Richardson figures out how to tax interstate commerce. This will further boost the economy in surrounding states and further depress Georgia.
We can speculate that Richardson will issue exemptions to companies who have his favor. He is already wavering on whether raw materials will be taxed. Last week, Richardson announced that there would be a cap on sales tax charged for business-to-business transactions. The cap may be anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 per vendor. The caps will give large Georgia businesses an edge over their smaller competitors, since smaller businesses pay sales tax on every purchase.
Expect to see sales tax incentives offered to foreign manufacturers as enticement to locate in Georgia, selling out our heritage to other countries.
Lt. Governor Casey Cagle (a Republican who is actually conservative) opposes the hare-brained GREAT tax. “This is not a tax cut,” Cagle recently noted.
In fact, it is a tax increase. Richardson is already claiming that there will be a 10% surplus over current tax revenues. That means his plan is a 10% tax increase.
Cagle says, “It is a tax shift, as it has been represented. And so the question becomes now, who are you shifting the tax burden to?”
The GREAT big tax shifts the burden onto the elderly, renters, college students, and small and medium businesses. It provides relief for millionaire property owners like Richardson and for large businesses.
Under the current tax system, the elderly are exempt from the school tax, reducing their tax burden to less than a third. Under the GREAT big tax, there are no tax breaks for the elderly. They shoulder an unfair proportion of the taxes on prescriptions and doctor visits. They also pay taxes on bread, milk and lawn services.
Renters also bear an unfair burden. Renters currently pay property taxes through their rent. Although the GREAT tax supposedly eliminates property taxes, out-of-state renters will pay a property tax of up to $2,000. Richardson disingenuously calls it a “fee” rather than a tax.
The fee-payers may include thousands of college students. This will discourage out-of-state students from enrolling in our colleges. Since these students pay higher tuition rates, the loss of this income could devastate our colleges.
Cagle goes on, “And it appears, under the current proposal, that there would be winners and losers in that structure, but more importantly, potentially it would put Georgia in a competitive disadvantage for businesses versus other states. And that gives me great heartburn.”
Cagle says businesses tell him the GREAT plan will increase their tax burdens at least 25%, and as much as 62%. That’s a very steep rate of inflation which will be passed along to Georgia consumers.
When you penalize consumers for buying Georgia goods, they respond by spending less money in this state. The economy stagnates, and jobs are lost. Bankruptcy courts will be bloated. Houses will be foreclosed on every street. People with education and opportunity will leave Georgia to find work elsewhere – leaving behind only the richest Georgians, and a class of working poor. This is the vision some Republicans have for Georgia.
There is a better solution for rising property taxes. According to Alan Essig, executive director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, property taxes for local governments have been essentially flat (as a percentage of income) for the last fifteen years. There is one exception: school districts’ tax rates have grown rapidly.
The school tax increase goes right back to Republican policies. Over the past several years, Republicans have robbed Georgia schools of over $1.5 billion. In areas where education is valued, local school boards respond to the cuts by requiring more from local property owners. As Essig says, “The locals have been reacting to what the state has done.”
The solution to property tax growth is quite simple: Make the Republicans give the school money back to the schools. Every dollar our schools receive from the state budget is a dollar that we do not have to pay in property taxes.
The GREAT big tax is a potential disaster for the elderly, renters, small and medium businesses, Georgia colleges, and employees. The good news is: We can stop it! The GREAT big tax cannot be implemented without an amendment to the Georgia Constitution. Amendments require approval by two thirds of the General Assembly, and then a majority vote at the next election.
If our legislators are foolish enough to pass this amendment, Georgia citizens can still vote NO to the GREAT big tax – and then vote out the legislators who favored it.
Currently the county collects ad valorem taxes on the value of our homes, cars, boats, barns, trailers and other big valuables. Those who drive a BMW and live in a mansion pay more than those who drive a Geo and own a 3-bedroom house. These taxes support our local government and schools.
Richardson’s proposal strips these funds from the county. Schools and local governments will have to go to Atlanta for every dime. The state will raise the funds through a sales tax on everything imaginable. Not only will we pay sales tax for fuel, clothes, cars and houses. We will also pay tax on bread, milk, medicine, and doctor visits.
The additional sales tax will cost Georgia businesses their competitive edge. Shops located near state lines will be impacted first. The revenue we currently enjoy from Tennessee, Alabama and Florida residents will evaporate.
Even Georgians will try not to buy here. No one wants to pay more when they can simply cross the state line (or log onto the Internet) to save money. People with means will buy everything from auto parts to clothing from out-of-state companies. The poor, who must buy locally, will be cut deepest by Richardson’s scheme.
As sales fall, the legislature must raise the tax rate to replace the lost revenue. As the tax rises, sales will fall more, and the tax must be raised higher – which will cause sales to fall even more, and so on. It’s a death spiral for the economy.
Even if the legislature holds the state sales tax at 4%, we end up paying a much higher tax because each item is taxed multiple times as it moves through manufacturing and distribution channels. You see, goods for resale will no longer be tax exempt.
The GREAT big tax deals Georgia manufacturers a devastating blow. Manufacturers who pay sales tax for raw materials and supplies cannot possibly compete with untaxed manufacturers in other states. Many will limp across state lines and reestablish business there – leaving behind empty buildings and thousands upon thousands of lost jobs.
Businesses that remain in Georgia will source their goods from manufacturers in other states, unless Richardson figures out how to tax interstate commerce. This will further boost the economy in surrounding states and further depress Georgia.
We can speculate that Richardson will issue exemptions to companies who have his favor. He is already wavering on whether raw materials will be taxed. Last week, Richardson announced that there would be a cap on sales tax charged for business-to-business transactions. The cap may be anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 per vendor. The caps will give large Georgia businesses an edge over their smaller competitors, since smaller businesses pay sales tax on every purchase.
Expect to see sales tax incentives offered to foreign manufacturers as enticement to locate in Georgia, selling out our heritage to other countries.
Lt. Governor Casey Cagle (a Republican who is actually conservative) opposes the hare-brained GREAT tax. “This is not a tax cut,” Cagle recently noted.
In fact, it is a tax increase. Richardson is already claiming that there will be a 10% surplus over current tax revenues. That means his plan is a 10% tax increase.
Cagle says, “It is a tax shift, as it has been represented. And so the question becomes now, who are you shifting the tax burden to?”
The GREAT big tax shifts the burden onto the elderly, renters, college students, and small and medium businesses. It provides relief for millionaire property owners like Richardson and for large businesses.
Under the current tax system, the elderly are exempt from the school tax, reducing their tax burden to less than a third. Under the GREAT big tax, there are no tax breaks for the elderly. They shoulder an unfair proportion of the taxes on prescriptions and doctor visits. They also pay taxes on bread, milk and lawn services.
Renters also bear an unfair burden. Renters currently pay property taxes through their rent. Although the GREAT tax supposedly eliminates property taxes, out-of-state renters will pay a property tax of up to $2,000. Richardson disingenuously calls it a “fee” rather than a tax.
The fee-payers may include thousands of college students. This will discourage out-of-state students from enrolling in our colleges. Since these students pay higher tuition rates, the loss of this income could devastate our colleges.
Cagle goes on, “And it appears, under the current proposal, that there would be winners and losers in that structure, but more importantly, potentially it would put Georgia in a competitive disadvantage for businesses versus other states. And that gives me great heartburn.”
Cagle says businesses tell him the GREAT plan will increase their tax burdens at least 25%, and as much as 62%. That’s a very steep rate of inflation which will be passed along to Georgia consumers.
When you penalize consumers for buying Georgia goods, they respond by spending less money in this state. The economy stagnates, and jobs are lost. Bankruptcy courts will be bloated. Houses will be foreclosed on every street. People with education and opportunity will leave Georgia to find work elsewhere – leaving behind only the richest Georgians, and a class of working poor. This is the vision some Republicans have for Georgia.
There is a better solution for rising property taxes. According to Alan Essig, executive director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, property taxes for local governments have been essentially flat (as a percentage of income) for the last fifteen years. There is one exception: school districts’ tax rates have grown rapidly.
The school tax increase goes right back to Republican policies. Over the past several years, Republicans have robbed Georgia schools of over $1.5 billion. In areas where education is valued, local school boards respond to the cuts by requiring more from local property owners. As Essig says, “The locals have been reacting to what the state has done.”
The solution to property tax growth is quite simple: Make the Republicans give the school money back to the schools. Every dollar our schools receive from the state budget is a dollar that we do not have to pay in property taxes.
The GREAT big tax is a potential disaster for the elderly, renters, small and medium businesses, Georgia colleges, and employees. The good news is: We can stop it! The GREAT big tax cannot be implemented without an amendment to the Georgia Constitution. Amendments require approval by two thirds of the General Assembly, and then a majority vote at the next election.
If our legislators are foolish enough to pass this amendment, Georgia citizens can still vote NO to the GREAT big tax – and then vote out the legislators who favored it.
Monday, November 5, 2007
GREAT big sales tax, GREAT big power grab
Remember when Republicans were against big government? At least that’s what they said. Georgia GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson is revising our tax system to centralize power into the hands of Big Government. This power grab will be funded by a high sales tax that will drive business out of Georgia, hike up the cost of living, and tax the daylights out of everything that breathes.
This week, I’ll explain how Richardson’s plan hurts taxpayers and local governments. Next week, we’ll look at the effect on Georgia businesses and unemployment.
Richardson calls it the GREAT Plan: Georgia’s Repeal of Every Ad valorem Tax. (The acronym should be GREAVT, but perhaps that sounded too much like grave or gravy.) He says he will make it illegal for counties to tax property, automobiles and boats. He says he will make up for lost county revenue with sales tax. Of course, that’s not mathematically possible without either raising the sales tax rate outright (which he claims he won’t do) or hiding additional sales taxes other places. By focusing on the repeal, Richardson hopes you won’t notice his funny math, and all the tax he’s adding elsewhere.
Richardson wants to expand the sales tax to cover anything that can be bought and sold, including services. Imagine paying sales tax for groceries, prescriptions, yard work, and even doctor visits.
But that’s still not enough revenue. In order to replace $9 billion in property taxes, Richardson must squeeze an extra $1,000 out of every man, woman and child in Georgia. At 4%, each Georgian would have to spend $25,000 in services per year. It just won’t work. Georgians only average $24,000 total spending per person. They can’t spend more on services alone than they spend altogether.
Rest assured, Richardson is not willing to give up one dollar of tax revenue. Georgia’s big government still has the same bills as before, and Richardson claims that local schools and municipalities will not be short-changed by the new system. All of the funds to operate Georgia will still come from taxes – that is, from us taxpayers.
Richardson has creative ways to extract these funds from you: multiple sales tax charges on every item. Currently the consumer pays sales tax just once, when an item is purchased at the store. Under the GREAT big tax, business-to-business transactions and raw materials will also be charged. Although he claims he will hold the line at 4%, the sales tax is much higher than that when you factor in the multiple instances of taxation before a product reaches the end user.
Imagine, for example, a loaf of bread. Under the GREAT big tax, bread and other groceries are no longer exempt from sales tax. Neither are raw materials or freight. The bakery will pay sales tax on the flour, the yeast, the packaging, and also the freight to get those goods to the bakery. Then the retail store will pay sales tax when purchasing the bread from the bakery. The same loaf of bread will get taxed at least three times. With most products, there are even more distribution and manufacturing layers.
All of this additional sales tax ends up tacked onto the final retail price – and taxed again at the checkout. Business-to-business taxes do not escalate in a straight line because of the tax on tax. When a product goes through several steps to reach the consumer (as nearly everything does), a so-called 4% sales tax may cost the consumer 20%.
Still other new taxes are concealed in the loaf of bread. What about the sales tax paid through the marketing firm who wrote the advertising campaign, and the sales tax paid through the newspaper who ran the ad? The store will also pay sales tax through the companies that clean its rugs and trim its lawn. All of these additional taxes end up in the price of a loaf of bread, where they are taxed yet again.
GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson may not be trying to bankrupt consumers. His real goal is to take the reigns from local government. By eliminating property taxes, the Speaker can micro-manage every county.
Property taxes are paid to the county and used in the county. Property taxes support our local government and our county schools. Under the new plan, counties and municipalities lose the ability to set, collect, and disburse property tax monies. Instead, the lost revenue will be replaced with sales tax collected by the state. And guess who’s holding the purse strings? The Georgia House of Representatives, which Richardson rules with an iron fist.
In other words, Richardson wants to eliminate a tax which is locally controlled and replace it with a tax that he controls. The state gives up nothing, and gains control over everything. Counties, municipalities, and schools will have to go begging to the General Assembly for every dime. The goal of local elections will be finding Richardson cronies who can stay on the volatile Speaker’s sunny side.
The GREAT big sales tax does not eliminate programs like SPLOST which add local sales tax on top of state sales tax. In fact, Richardson wants to expand local option sales tax so that counties can use the money for maintenance and operation. Now, why would counties need operating funds if he were really going to make sure that local governments receive the same funds as before?
It is easy to see what will happen. As local governments and schools cower at Richardson’s feet begging for funds, they will be forced to cover shortfalls. Since property taxes will be illegal, local governments will demand even more local option sales tax on the top of the GREAT big sales tax. By this time consumers may not be able to afford a cup of coffee.
Understandably, local government officials all over Georgia oppose the plan. In fact, many of them dispute the figures. Tom Gehl, spokesman for the Georgia Municipal Association put it like this, “The speaker has a right to his own opinion, but he doesn’t have a right to his own math.”
Citizens should oppose the plan, too. We may not agree with every decision that our local officials make, but we elected them. They work right here in our county, where we can drop in to talk to them about problems, stand up to speak at a local public meeting, and tell our friends to help us boot them out if they do us wrong. That is more difficult to do with state officials who have a broad voter base, work in Atlanta and often operate beneath a veil of secrecy.
State Reps Ron Forster (Catoosa/Whitfield) and Martin Scott (Dade/Walker) seem to be caught in the Speaker’s spell. State Senator Jeff Mullis is more lucid, even citing the local control issue -- yet he also praises Richardson for introducing the proposal.
The GREAT big sales tax is a great big disaster looming in Georgia’s future. It will strip local sovereignty and put entirely too much political power in the hands on one man.
Stay tuned next week to learn how Richardson’s GREAT big tax will result in a mass exodus of Georgia jobs.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
This week, I’ll explain how Richardson’s plan hurts taxpayers and local governments. Next week, we’ll look at the effect on Georgia businesses and unemployment.
Richardson calls it the GREAT Plan: Georgia’s Repeal of Every Ad valorem Tax. (The acronym should be GREAVT, but perhaps that sounded too much like grave or gravy.) He says he will make it illegal for counties to tax property, automobiles and boats. He says he will make up for lost county revenue with sales tax. Of course, that’s not mathematically possible without either raising the sales tax rate outright (which he claims he won’t do) or hiding additional sales taxes other places. By focusing on the repeal, Richardson hopes you won’t notice his funny math, and all the tax he’s adding elsewhere.
Richardson wants to expand the sales tax to cover anything that can be bought and sold, including services. Imagine paying sales tax for groceries, prescriptions, yard work, and even doctor visits.
But that’s still not enough revenue. In order to replace $9 billion in property taxes, Richardson must squeeze an extra $1,000 out of every man, woman and child in Georgia. At 4%, each Georgian would have to spend $25,000 in services per year. It just won’t work. Georgians only average $24,000 total spending per person. They can’t spend more on services alone than they spend altogether.
Rest assured, Richardson is not willing to give up one dollar of tax revenue. Georgia’s big government still has the same bills as before, and Richardson claims that local schools and municipalities will not be short-changed by the new system. All of the funds to operate Georgia will still come from taxes – that is, from us taxpayers.
Richardson has creative ways to extract these funds from you: multiple sales tax charges on every item. Currently the consumer pays sales tax just once, when an item is purchased at the store. Under the GREAT big tax, business-to-business transactions and raw materials will also be charged. Although he claims he will hold the line at 4%, the sales tax is much higher than that when you factor in the multiple instances of taxation before a product reaches the end user.
Imagine, for example, a loaf of bread. Under the GREAT big tax, bread and other groceries are no longer exempt from sales tax. Neither are raw materials or freight. The bakery will pay sales tax on the flour, the yeast, the packaging, and also the freight to get those goods to the bakery. Then the retail store will pay sales tax when purchasing the bread from the bakery. The same loaf of bread will get taxed at least three times. With most products, there are even more distribution and manufacturing layers.
All of this additional sales tax ends up tacked onto the final retail price – and taxed again at the checkout. Business-to-business taxes do not escalate in a straight line because of the tax on tax. When a product goes through several steps to reach the consumer (as nearly everything does), a so-called 4% sales tax may cost the consumer 20%.
Still other new taxes are concealed in the loaf of bread. What about the sales tax paid through the marketing firm who wrote the advertising campaign, and the sales tax paid through the newspaper who ran the ad? The store will also pay sales tax through the companies that clean its rugs and trim its lawn. All of these additional taxes end up in the price of a loaf of bread, where they are taxed yet again.
GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson may not be trying to bankrupt consumers. His real goal is to take the reigns from local government. By eliminating property taxes, the Speaker can micro-manage every county.
Property taxes are paid to the county and used in the county. Property taxes support our local government and our county schools. Under the new plan, counties and municipalities lose the ability to set, collect, and disburse property tax monies. Instead, the lost revenue will be replaced with sales tax collected by the state. And guess who’s holding the purse strings? The Georgia House of Representatives, which Richardson rules with an iron fist.
In other words, Richardson wants to eliminate a tax which is locally controlled and replace it with a tax that he controls. The state gives up nothing, and gains control over everything. Counties, municipalities, and schools will have to go begging to the General Assembly for every dime. The goal of local elections will be finding Richardson cronies who can stay on the volatile Speaker’s sunny side.
The GREAT big sales tax does not eliminate programs like SPLOST which add local sales tax on top of state sales tax. In fact, Richardson wants to expand local option sales tax so that counties can use the money for maintenance and operation. Now, why would counties need operating funds if he were really going to make sure that local governments receive the same funds as before?
It is easy to see what will happen. As local governments and schools cower at Richardson’s feet begging for funds, they will be forced to cover shortfalls. Since property taxes will be illegal, local governments will demand even more local option sales tax on the top of the GREAT big sales tax. By this time consumers may not be able to afford a cup of coffee.
Understandably, local government officials all over Georgia oppose the plan. In fact, many of them dispute the figures. Tom Gehl, spokesman for the Georgia Municipal Association put it like this, “The speaker has a right to his own opinion, but he doesn’t have a right to his own math.”
Citizens should oppose the plan, too. We may not agree with every decision that our local officials make, but we elected them. They work right here in our county, where we can drop in to talk to them about problems, stand up to speak at a local public meeting, and tell our friends to help us boot them out if they do us wrong. That is more difficult to do with state officials who have a broad voter base, work in Atlanta and often operate beneath a veil of secrecy.
State Reps Ron Forster (Catoosa/Whitfield) and Martin Scott (Dade/Walker) seem to be caught in the Speaker’s spell. State Senator Jeff Mullis is more lucid, even citing the local control issue -- yet he also praises Richardson for introducing the proposal.
The GREAT big sales tax is a great big disaster looming in Georgia’s future. It will strip local sovereignty and put entirely too much political power in the hands on one man.
Stay tuned next week to learn how Richardson’s GREAT big tax will result in a mass exodus of Georgia jobs.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Friday, November 2, 2007
Local government runs over produce stand
Nine years ago, Catoosa County residents Brenda and Ronnie Norris had a bumper crop of tomatoes. In a stroke of inspiration, Brenda set up two tables underneath a big shade tree on the corner of Three Notch and Poplar Springs.
“Do you have any squash?” customers would ask. Brenda would run over to the garden to see what she could find. “What about okra? Can you get any okra?”
Soon Shadetree Produce became a frequent stop for many Catoosa and Walker residents who pass that way. Ikey Land helped the Norrises construct a shelter of PVC and tarps. Ronnie Norris purchased the fruits and vegetables they could not grow, and the little business developed a loyal customer base. Many Shadetree customers are elderly and depend on the produce stand for fresh foods close to home.
Then someone decided that Shadetree Produce was in the way. The Norrises say they were informed by the county that a turn lane would be installed along the right-of-way in about three weeks. One week later, the roadwork team appeared, paving an 18-foot turn lane right over their driveway.
Ronnie Norris was at the market when they came, buying $700 of produce. All of it spoiled. In fact, the Norrises say they lost approximately $6,000 in revenue while the county was installing the turn lane. Brenda says the county would not let customers stop at the produce stand. “They were just waving them past.”
The workers left behind a black stretch of asphalt where the parking lot had been, with a guard rail nearly blocking entrance to the produce stand. “People started coming by, asking ‘Who’d you make mad?’” Brenda recalls.
Eva Hatcher, who lives on Poplar Springs Road and works at the produce stand, says that traffic is much worse now than before the turn lane was installed. Another possibility existed for the county – that of buying a nearby house that is for sale directly across from the Poplar Springs and Three Notch intersection, and accessing the new Heritage schools through that piece of property. This is a natural place to install a traffic light.
This is just another tale of how the county government walks on those it ought to serve. Rather than working with the Norrises to complete the turn lane without damaging their income, the county simply bulldozed them. They were not consulted – just as the fire departments were not consulted before Catoosa County Commissioners voted to advertise for a consolidated fire chief. They were merely informed, and not in time to react.
Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story for Ronnie and Brenda Norris. Shadetree Produce customers rallied to their support, encouraging them to revamp rather than close the stand. They took down the old PVC-and-tarp structure, and bought a metal building to replace it. Bobby Swanson Construction made them a good deal for construction of a small parking lot. Johnny Coots and Charles Simerley provided doors and windows for the new building.
Commissioner Bobby Winters, a frequent customer, brought in gravel to set the new building, and put in a Poplar Springs access drive. But when Ronnie suggested the Catoosa County should reimburse Shadetree for part of the business loss and cost of moving, he says Winters smiled and asked, “How would you prove it?”
Shadetree Produce is open seven days a week. Pumpkins are of course in season, as well as a variety of crunchy apples trucked in from Virginia due to the Georgia drought. They also have oranges and honeybells, which are a type of tangelo. The bell peppers were especially good last week. I served mine stuffed with corn chips, ground beef, tomato paste and rice, topped with parmesan and croutons.
Take some time this week to stop at a local produce stand. Eat in a restaurant where the name is not printed on the napkins, and where the woman who sets your plate on the table is likely the owner, or at least a cousin or a friend.
Buy a gift at a locally-owned shop, where the owner selects every item and places it lovingly on the shelf. The extra dollar you may spend builds up your county and makes it a better place to live. When we buy locally, we support our friends and neighbors instead of shifting jobs to underpaid workers in foreign countries. When we support local businesses, we are really giving back to ourselves.
“Do you have any squash?” customers would ask. Brenda would run over to the garden to see what she could find. “What about okra? Can you get any okra?”
Soon Shadetree Produce became a frequent stop for many Catoosa and Walker residents who pass that way. Ikey Land helped the Norrises construct a shelter of PVC and tarps. Ronnie Norris purchased the fruits and vegetables they could not grow, and the little business developed a loyal customer base. Many Shadetree customers are elderly and depend on the produce stand for fresh foods close to home.
Then someone decided that Shadetree Produce was in the way. The Norrises say they were informed by the county that a turn lane would be installed along the right-of-way in about three weeks. One week later, the roadwork team appeared, paving an 18-foot turn lane right over their driveway.
Ronnie Norris was at the market when they came, buying $700 of produce. All of it spoiled. In fact, the Norrises say they lost approximately $6,000 in revenue while the county was installing the turn lane. Brenda says the county would not let customers stop at the produce stand. “They were just waving them past.”
The workers left behind a black stretch of asphalt where the parking lot had been, with a guard rail nearly blocking entrance to the produce stand. “People started coming by, asking ‘Who’d you make mad?’” Brenda recalls.
Eva Hatcher, who lives on Poplar Springs Road and works at the produce stand, says that traffic is much worse now than before the turn lane was installed. Another possibility existed for the county – that of buying a nearby house that is for sale directly across from the Poplar Springs and Three Notch intersection, and accessing the new Heritage schools through that piece of property. This is a natural place to install a traffic light.
This is just another tale of how the county government walks on those it ought to serve. Rather than working with the Norrises to complete the turn lane without damaging their income, the county simply bulldozed them. They were not consulted – just as the fire departments were not consulted before Catoosa County Commissioners voted to advertise for a consolidated fire chief. They were merely informed, and not in time to react.
Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story for Ronnie and Brenda Norris. Shadetree Produce customers rallied to their support, encouraging them to revamp rather than close the stand. They took down the old PVC-and-tarp structure, and bought a metal building to replace it. Bobby Swanson Construction made them a good deal for construction of a small parking lot. Johnny Coots and Charles Simerley provided doors and windows for the new building.
Commissioner Bobby Winters, a frequent customer, brought in gravel to set the new building, and put in a Poplar Springs access drive. But when Ronnie suggested the Catoosa County should reimburse Shadetree for part of the business loss and cost of moving, he says Winters smiled and asked, “How would you prove it?”
Shadetree Produce is open seven days a week. Pumpkins are of course in season, as well as a variety of crunchy apples trucked in from Virginia due to the Georgia drought. They also have oranges and honeybells, which are a type of tangelo. The bell peppers were especially good last week. I served mine stuffed with corn chips, ground beef, tomato paste and rice, topped with parmesan and croutons.
Take some time this week to stop at a local produce stand. Eat in a restaurant where the name is not printed on the napkins, and where the woman who sets your plate on the table is likely the owner, or at least a cousin or a friend.
Buy a gift at a locally-owned shop, where the owner selects every item and places it lovingly on the shelf. The extra dollar you may spend builds up your county and makes it a better place to live. When we buy locally, we support our friends and neighbors instead of shifting jobs to underpaid workers in foreign countries. When we support local businesses, we are really giving back to ourselves.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Govenor's Cup inhibits SAT participation
The Governor’s Cup is empty. In 2003, newly elected Governor Sonny Perdue instituted the “Governor’s Cup Challenge” to reward schools for bringing up the average senior SAT score. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise to bring Georgia’s average SAT up from “dead last.”
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush wants money for Iraq occupation, not America’s children
Last Wednesday, President Bush demanded another $189 billion to extend his occupation of Iraq for another year – even as he stripped low-income children of their healthcare. The cost of funding an expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced s-chip) is only $12 billion per year, less than a tenth the money he wants for Iraq.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The problem with breastfeeding
What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.
The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.
Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.
In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.
Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.
As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.
American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.
Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.
The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.
The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.
Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.
In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.
Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.
As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.
American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.
Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.
The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
A Christian and a Democrat
“I can’t vote for a Democrat,” a man once told me. “I’m a Christian.” He spoke these two labels as if they were a set of antonyms. He could not grasp my attempts to explain that one label referred to a religion while the other referred to a political party. Some preacher had told him that all Christians are Republicans, and he had accepted this factoid without thinking.
I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.
He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.
“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”
“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.
The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)
Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”
As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.
A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.
If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.
The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.
Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.
It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.
Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.
According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.
Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.
The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.
Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.
Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.
Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?
My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.
I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.
He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.
“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”
“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.
The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)
Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”
As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.
A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.
If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.
The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.
Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.
It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.
Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.
According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.
Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.
The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.
Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.
Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.
Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?
My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
An open letter to Christian pastors
Pastors, have you ever preached a sermon against domestic violence? Odds are, you haven’t. I’ve listened to approximately 4,000 sermons and have yet to hear a pastor condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.
Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.
Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”
Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.
The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.
Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.
Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.
T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.
Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse. In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband. Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”
Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.
One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.
In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.
Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation. He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage: The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding. As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband: “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.
Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.
Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.
Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.
Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.
Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”
Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.
The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.
Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.
Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.
T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.
Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse. In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband. Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”
Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.
One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.
In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.
Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation. He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage: The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding. As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband: “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.
Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.
Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.
Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.
Frequently asked questions
The most exciting facet of writing a weekly column is receiving reader questions and comments. Each piece goes out to tens of thousands, and then the columnist waits to see who will answer. Some questions tend to be repeated, and thus call for a public response.
Several readers have sent emails asking, “How can you be a Christian and a feminist?” That’s an easy one. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus, the Son of God, laid down his life for humankind. A feminist is someone who believes that women are human. How can any Christian woman not be a feminist?
Other readers have asked, “Why do you hate George Bush?” The emotion that causes me to point at the Constitution with a look of panic in my eyes in not hatred. It is, in fact, love. Only those who love liberty cry when it is torn asunder in the name of fear. The rest of America shrugs and says, “It was only a Muslim who lost his rights. No one is spying on me or falsely arresting me or my friends, so who cares?” How quickly we forget the lessons of history!
Consider the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
The real question is: When did the public forget the importance of holding our government accountable? Americans have been sold a lie. We have been told that we must agree with the occupation of Iraq, or else we cannot support our troops. Christians in particular are taught that we must only “pray for the President” rather than voicing our dissent. Nobody suggested such a tactic during Bill Clinton’s administration. These days, Bushies call those who disagree with Republican policy traitors or even terrorists. When open dissent is squelched, liberty is only an illusion.
Since last week’s paper was published, a handful of pit bull apologists from around the U.S. have sent a small torrent of emails accusing me of prejudice against their favorite pets. These dog-owners claim we should not judge their pets by their breed, just as we should not judge people by their skin color. My piece took a hard-line approach against all aggressive dogs. If a cocker spaniel or a pit bull bit my child, either dog would meet the same fate. The child would not. Large dog attacks are far more likely to result in death, maiming or disfigurement. Among large dogs, some breeds are more likely to attack than others. For this reason, it makes sense to keep tabs on which breeds have a greater tendency to attack the weak and defenseless. Studies implicate the pit bull as the number one killer dog.
Just since I wrote the piece on killer dogs, several more people have been attacked by pit bulls. A woman in California was attacked by a neighbor’s pit bull in her own garage. The dog wanted the baby boy in her arms. In desperation, she hid the baby in a trash can while she fended off the beast. The pit bull lunged at the trash can and knocked the baby onto the floor. The brave mother threw herself between the pit bull and the baby, so that the vicious animal clamped onto her arms rather than the baby’s head. Nearby construction workers responded to the woman’s screams and beat the dog with their tools until it ran away. They saved the mother’s life, but she still may lose the use of her arms. So much for pit bull lovers’ claims that irresponsible mothers are to blame for attacks on children!
On the first of this month, a six-year-old boy in Dallas was mauled to death by the family pit bull. On Saturday, another six-year-old boy was attacked by another pit bull. His older sister was also scratched and bitten as she tried to rescue him. Elsewhere, mail carriers, police officers and other professionals continue to face danger from aggressive dogs in their line of work. Police officers frequently shoot pit bulls in self defense.
Dogs are not people, and therefore charges of breed prejudice hardly carry the weight of racism or sexism charges. I like dogs, so long as they keep their teeth, claws, barking, and defecating to themselves. I like tigers, too, but I hope none of my neighbors decide to tame a tiger, call it a pet, and tie on a rope in their back yard.
Some readers express great relief at the common sense presented in my column, and want to know “Where have you been all my life?” Before I began the column, some had worried that the local paper was not taking a neutral stance toward politics. The fact is that the paper just did not have an independent weekly columnist who was left-leaning. I am thrilled to be here now, voicing a balancing opinion.
And finally, to all those who begin their letters with “I disagree,” I invite you to continue disagreeing and continue sending your responses via email. I write to address current topics, to expose inconsistencies in our culture, to hold the government accountable, and to facilitate public dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree, I have succeeded in bringing the subject to your attention and presenting a different angle. You are thinking about these issues, and thus the column is a success. Keep reading, keep thinking, and keep responding.
Several readers have sent emails asking, “How can you be a Christian and a feminist?” That’s an easy one. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus, the Son of God, laid down his life for humankind. A feminist is someone who believes that women are human. How can any Christian woman not be a feminist?
Other readers have asked, “Why do you hate George Bush?” The emotion that causes me to point at the Constitution with a look of panic in my eyes in not hatred. It is, in fact, love. Only those who love liberty cry when it is torn asunder in the name of fear. The rest of America shrugs and says, “It was only a Muslim who lost his rights. No one is spying on me or falsely arresting me or my friends, so who cares?” How quickly we forget the lessons of history!
Consider the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
The real question is: When did the public forget the importance of holding our government accountable? Americans have been sold a lie. We have been told that we must agree with the occupation of Iraq, or else we cannot support our troops. Christians in particular are taught that we must only “pray for the President” rather than voicing our dissent. Nobody suggested such a tactic during Bill Clinton’s administration. These days, Bushies call those who disagree with Republican policy traitors or even terrorists. When open dissent is squelched, liberty is only an illusion.
Since last week’s paper was published, a handful of pit bull apologists from around the U.S. have sent a small torrent of emails accusing me of prejudice against their favorite pets. These dog-owners claim we should not judge their pets by their breed, just as we should not judge people by their skin color. My piece took a hard-line approach against all aggressive dogs. If a cocker spaniel or a pit bull bit my child, either dog would meet the same fate. The child would not. Large dog attacks are far more likely to result in death, maiming or disfigurement. Among large dogs, some breeds are more likely to attack than others. For this reason, it makes sense to keep tabs on which breeds have a greater tendency to attack the weak and defenseless. Studies implicate the pit bull as the number one killer dog.
Just since I wrote the piece on killer dogs, several more people have been attacked by pit bulls. A woman in California was attacked by a neighbor’s pit bull in her own garage. The dog wanted the baby boy in her arms. In desperation, she hid the baby in a trash can while she fended off the beast. The pit bull lunged at the trash can and knocked the baby onto the floor. The brave mother threw herself between the pit bull and the baby, so that the vicious animal clamped onto her arms rather than the baby’s head. Nearby construction workers responded to the woman’s screams and beat the dog with their tools until it ran away. They saved the mother’s life, but she still may lose the use of her arms. So much for pit bull lovers’ claims that irresponsible mothers are to blame for attacks on children!
On the first of this month, a six-year-old boy in Dallas was mauled to death by the family pit bull. On Saturday, another six-year-old boy was attacked by another pit bull. His older sister was also scratched and bitten as she tried to rescue him. Elsewhere, mail carriers, police officers and other professionals continue to face danger from aggressive dogs in their line of work. Police officers frequently shoot pit bulls in self defense.
Dogs are not people, and therefore charges of breed prejudice hardly carry the weight of racism or sexism charges. I like dogs, so long as they keep their teeth, claws, barking, and defecating to themselves. I like tigers, too, but I hope none of my neighbors decide to tame a tiger, call it a pet, and tie on a rope in their back yard.
Some readers express great relief at the common sense presented in my column, and want to know “Where have you been all my life?” Before I began the column, some had worried that the local paper was not taking a neutral stance toward politics. The fact is that the paper just did not have an independent weekly columnist who was left-leaning. I am thrilled to be here now, voicing a balancing opinion.
And finally, to all those who begin their letters with “I disagree,” I invite you to continue disagreeing and continue sending your responses via email. I write to address current topics, to expose inconsistencies in our culture, to hold the government accountable, and to facilitate public dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree, I have succeeded in bringing the subject to your attention and presenting a different angle. You are thinking about these issues, and thus the column is a success. Keep reading, keep thinking, and keep responding.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Animals for the ethical treatment of people
Earlier this summer, a 5-year-old child with Down’s syndrome was reported missing. Hours later her body was found. Authorities charged the girl’s mother with involuntary manslaughter. But wait – this little girl was not killed by her mother. She was mauled to death by the neighbor’s dog.
With Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal fresh in the news, animal activists are pushing for laws to protect pit bulls. But what about laws to protect humans – especially children – from vicious animals?
PETA wants people to treat animals better. Where is AETP, Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People? Is there a Lassie or a Benji out there somewhere who will advocate for children? We need such an advocate, because the human public seems more interested in protecting the vicious dogs.
In Paducah a six-year-old boy was mauled by a neighbor’s Alaskan malamute. The boy is recovering. Community response? People fought over the dog, begging authorities not to euthanize it. They said he deserved “a second chance.” A second chance to do what? Make a clean kill next time?
About the same time, a child in Niagara Falls, New York was bitten in the face by a repeat offender. The shepherd mix had bitten another child just two weeks earlier.
The public did respond when Kaitlyn Hassard’s retriever choked her to death with her neck scarf: Over 300 people wanted to adopt the killer dog. If it had been the 6-year-old girl in trouble, how many families would have begged to adopt her? (Hint: Ask social services how many “older” children wait indefinitely on their adoption lists.) Many pet-owners were outraged that the dog was put up for adoption at all, insisting that the girl’s mother was at fault. “She should have never taken her eyes off her that kid for a minute.” Of course, they say the same thing every time a pit bull tears a little child’s face off.
Dozens of news stories each year report on small children disfigured or fatally mauled by such dogs. Invariably, the owner states the behavior was “totally out of character” and the dog was always gentle till now. Does it not occur to these pet owners that “out of character” behavior is very much in character for certain animals?
Pit bulls are not teddy bears, after all. These are large creatures with sharp fangs set in powerful jaws. They are bred to kill. Every fiber of their being is designer-engineered to clamp down on a throat and shake until the victim stops struggling. You can train some of them to act nice most of the time – much as a lion can be tamed – but the killer instinct is there, just beneath the surface, like a trip wire waiting to be triggered.
After the attack comes the tug-of-war between officials who want to destroy the dangerous animal, and the bleeding heart animal lovers who want to “rehabilitate” the animal or (more likely) proclaim its innocence while blaming the mother. If a dog ever harms one of my sweet babies, this will not be an issue. Instead, the two groups can haggle over disposal of the remains.
Ontario banned ownership of pit bulls after a toddler was attacked by three pit bulls that leapt a fence to tear into him. The rescue required half a dozen people and four of them, including both the boy’s parents, required hospitalization. The ban made sense to the province’s attorney general Michael Bryant, who said, “Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool, maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”
Some counties and one state (Virginia) actually have a vicious dog registry. If officials know where these dangerous animals are, why not destroy them before they can hurt anyone? These animals are desired because of their killer tendencies, not in spite of them. That’s why breeders breed them, that’s why people buy them, and we ought to just admit it.
Absurdly, families increasingly adopt a vicious breed and then domesticate it to play with children. According to a study by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, just three breeds are responsible for 74% of all attacks. Pit bulls top the list, followed by rottweilers, then German shepherds. The Centers for Disease Control says pit bulls kill three times as many people as rottweilers.
In over two-thirds of the cases Clifton studied, the very first known dangerous behavior of the animal proved to be fatal or life-threatening. Dogs bite 4.7 million people annually, and 800,000 dog bites require medical attention. In fact, dogs are the second leading cause of emergency room visits by children.
The majority of offending dogs bite someone at their own home or another familiar place. These dogs aren’t defending the home place, either; 77% are attacking their human family or close friends of the family.
According to the National Canine Research Council, fatal dog attacks are on the rise, having doubled in the last five years. Meanwhile, America seems to have lost all reason when it comes to pets. Dear Abby recently had to advise a reader that, no, it is not okay to shut your 2-year-old alone in a room so the boyfriend’s aggressive dog “Crusher” can roam the house. People have birthday parties for their dogs. They buy RVs so they can take them on vacation, and dress them in Halloween costumes. Some dogs have better health insurance than Georgia’s children.
In local papers, the pet food scandal gets far more press than the proliferation of lead in children’s toys and vinyl lunch boxes. Baby formula recalls are rarely mentioned in the paper, even when deadly bacteria is discovered in cans of fake breast milk. Week after week, we read how China is poisoning our pets. Does anyone care that they are poisoning our children? How easily we shrug off a host of companies committing fraud against children, including corporate giants like toxic-toy Mattel, and the formula-maker Nestle who is responsible for killing a million babies per year. Apparently, they can take our children. Just don’t hurt Fido!
Getting back to Michael Vick, it is interesting to note the extreme responses of the public, the press and even the NFL. Sure, his actions were heinous. But is dog-fighting really a worse crime than assaulting and stalking women? So many professional athletes have been accused of domestic violence that we have long since lost count. Their coaches have been known to bail them out of jail and put them on the field the very next day.
Bobby Chinourd – one of the few athletes actually to be convicted – was sentenced to just one year for terrorizing and threatening to kill his wife. The judge let him serve the sentence in 3-month increments during the off-season, not wanting to limit his time on the field. When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a woman in a hotel, he received a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support. Even Rae Curruth, who paid someone to kill his pregnant girlfriend, did not elicit the public outrage aimed at Michael Vick.
When Hawaii quarterback Raphel Cherry was convicted of strangling his wife, head coach June Jones responded, "It just makes you sick for him and his family.” What makes me sick is that athletes who mistreat women garner more sympathy than an athlete who mistreated dogs. Our culture values animals more highly than women and children.
I like dogs. My family still laughs at how I spent one childhood summer living in a cardboard box on the porch because I didn’t want to be away from my mutt Old Yellar. I cried for two days when Old Yellar was struck by a car and died, and I have cried over several dogs since then. I won’t argue with the concept that all dogs go to heaven. I just think some should go sooner than others.
With Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal fresh in the news, animal activists are pushing for laws to protect pit bulls. But what about laws to protect humans – especially children – from vicious animals?
PETA wants people to treat animals better. Where is AETP, Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People? Is there a Lassie or a Benji out there somewhere who will advocate for children? We need such an advocate, because the human public seems more interested in protecting the vicious dogs.
In Paducah a six-year-old boy was mauled by a neighbor’s Alaskan malamute. The boy is recovering. Community response? People fought over the dog, begging authorities not to euthanize it. They said he deserved “a second chance.” A second chance to do what? Make a clean kill next time?
About the same time, a child in Niagara Falls, New York was bitten in the face by a repeat offender. The shepherd mix had bitten another child just two weeks earlier.
The public did respond when Kaitlyn Hassard’s retriever choked her to death with her neck scarf: Over 300 people wanted to adopt the killer dog. If it had been the 6-year-old girl in trouble, how many families would have begged to adopt her? (Hint: Ask social services how many “older” children wait indefinitely on their adoption lists.) Many pet-owners were outraged that the dog was put up for adoption at all, insisting that the girl’s mother was at fault. “She should have never taken her eyes off her that kid for a minute.” Of course, they say the same thing every time a pit bull tears a little child’s face off.
Dozens of news stories each year report on small children disfigured or fatally mauled by such dogs. Invariably, the owner states the behavior was “totally out of character” and the dog was always gentle till now. Does it not occur to these pet owners that “out of character” behavior is very much in character for certain animals?
Pit bulls are not teddy bears, after all. These are large creatures with sharp fangs set in powerful jaws. They are bred to kill. Every fiber of their being is designer-engineered to clamp down on a throat and shake until the victim stops struggling. You can train some of them to act nice most of the time – much as a lion can be tamed – but the killer instinct is there, just beneath the surface, like a trip wire waiting to be triggered.
After the attack comes the tug-of-war between officials who want to destroy the dangerous animal, and the bleeding heart animal lovers who want to “rehabilitate” the animal or (more likely) proclaim its innocence while blaming the mother. If a dog ever harms one of my sweet babies, this will not be an issue. Instead, the two groups can haggle over disposal of the remains.
Ontario banned ownership of pit bulls after a toddler was attacked by three pit bulls that leapt a fence to tear into him. The rescue required half a dozen people and four of them, including both the boy’s parents, required hospitalization. The ban made sense to the province’s attorney general Michael Bryant, who said, “Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool, maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”
Some counties and one state (Virginia) actually have a vicious dog registry. If officials know where these dangerous animals are, why not destroy them before they can hurt anyone? These animals are desired because of their killer tendencies, not in spite of them. That’s why breeders breed them, that’s why people buy them, and we ought to just admit it.
Absurdly, families increasingly adopt a vicious breed and then domesticate it to play with children. According to a study by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, just three breeds are responsible for 74% of all attacks. Pit bulls top the list, followed by rottweilers, then German shepherds. The Centers for Disease Control says pit bulls kill three times as many people as rottweilers.
In over two-thirds of the cases Clifton studied, the very first known dangerous behavior of the animal proved to be fatal or life-threatening. Dogs bite 4.7 million people annually, and 800,000 dog bites require medical attention. In fact, dogs are the second leading cause of emergency room visits by children.
The majority of offending dogs bite someone at their own home or another familiar place. These dogs aren’t defending the home place, either; 77% are attacking their human family or close friends of the family.
According to the National Canine Research Council, fatal dog attacks are on the rise, having doubled in the last five years. Meanwhile, America seems to have lost all reason when it comes to pets. Dear Abby recently had to advise a reader that, no, it is not okay to shut your 2-year-old alone in a room so the boyfriend’s aggressive dog “Crusher” can roam the house. People have birthday parties for their dogs. They buy RVs so they can take them on vacation, and dress them in Halloween costumes. Some dogs have better health insurance than Georgia’s children.
In local papers, the pet food scandal gets far more press than the proliferation of lead in children’s toys and vinyl lunch boxes. Baby formula recalls are rarely mentioned in the paper, even when deadly bacteria is discovered in cans of fake breast milk. Week after week, we read how China is poisoning our pets. Does anyone care that they are poisoning our children? How easily we shrug off a host of companies committing fraud against children, including corporate giants like toxic-toy Mattel, and the formula-maker Nestle who is responsible for killing a million babies per year. Apparently, they can take our children. Just don’t hurt Fido!
Getting back to Michael Vick, it is interesting to note the extreme responses of the public, the press and even the NFL. Sure, his actions were heinous. But is dog-fighting really a worse crime than assaulting and stalking women? So many professional athletes have been accused of domestic violence that we have long since lost count. Their coaches have been known to bail them out of jail and put them on the field the very next day.
Bobby Chinourd – one of the few athletes actually to be convicted – was sentenced to just one year for terrorizing and threatening to kill his wife. The judge let him serve the sentence in 3-month increments during the off-season, not wanting to limit his time on the field. When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a woman in a hotel, he received a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support. Even Rae Curruth, who paid someone to kill his pregnant girlfriend, did not elicit the public outrage aimed at Michael Vick.
When Hawaii quarterback Raphel Cherry was convicted of strangling his wife, head coach June Jones responded, "It just makes you sick for him and his family.” What makes me sick is that athletes who mistreat women garner more sympathy than an athlete who mistreated dogs. Our culture values animals more highly than women and children.
I like dogs. My family still laughs at how I spent one childhood summer living in a cardboard box on the porch because I didn’t want to be away from my mutt Old Yellar. I cried for two days when Old Yellar was struck by a car and died, and I have cried over several dogs since then. I won’t argue with the concept that all dogs go to heaven. I just think some should go sooner than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
