Texas Talk--Part I

This past weekend I was a delegate at the Texas State Republican Convention. It’s not a presidential year, so it might seem more low key then in those other years. Still, there’s some good conservative stuff being said.

There are more delegates at the Texas convention than at the national GOP convention. And there’s a much higher percentage of those that are conservative or very conservative. So, it’s safe to say this is the biggest gathering of conservatives participating in the government process anywhere in the world.

convention logo, from up on the big screen

Texans are plain spoken. In-your-face bold. And sometimes colorful with the metaphors. I’ve developed a taste for the Texas sound. (I’ve been imitating the sound pretty well since our pre-Texas years, when we started reading Hank the Cowdog books aloud.) One of the most Texas sounding was Sid Miller, candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. He always has his cowboy hat on. If I’m remembering his bio accurately, he’s a former rodeo champion. In his speech, he said the greatest threat to freedom is the overreaching federal government: “Standing up to the EPA, BLM, or any of those other dirty three-letter organizations” is what we’re about.

I think there’s a good chance we heard from the next US President during this convention. I’m not that good at prognostication, and no one has announced a candidacy yet, but some speeches sounded like the preliminaries.

There was a straw poll—and a change in the rules, so that two years from now our straw poll will have an effect on how the at-large delegates will be directed to vote. For now it was just for fun.

I hadn’t done a lot of thinking about Ted Cruz as a candidate for president. He’s a first-term senator, doing a stellar job there (no voting present). We’ve elected a first-term senator before, and his lack of experience is becoming more evident as he fails to learn on the job.

early purchase, in case I need it later

Ted Cruz had a lot of good experience before becoming a senator, but I do think governors are a more typical source of executive material, as a rule of thumb. But clearly other Texans have their hopes set on him. And I have to say, if he runs, I would be glad—and very supportive. (I bought myself a political button, just before they ran out, in case I need it later.)

He sounds like he just might run, although no mention of the possibility came up in his speech. I thought I’d share some highlights here, for those who didn’t get to be there. Ted Cruz, by the way, sounds like a thinking lawyer, fully capable of supporting his ideas before the Supreme Court—which he has done. He doesn’t have much of an accent, and he dresses in conservative suits and white shirts and ties. Still, he speaks very boldly, in that Texas way—and he wears cowboy boots with his suits.

Sen. Ted Cruz, wearing boots,
speaking without notes or teleprompter

His first words were, “I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

The speech was divided into three main parts, with some extended comments on each. Part I was Defend the Constitution. He quoted Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Cruz said we should defend all of the Bill of Rights.

Of the Second Amendment he offered this Texas perspective: “In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

Of the First Amendment, he referred to the litigation against Little Sisters of the Poor, in which the federal government claims it has a right and overriding interest in forcing nuns to pay for abortions of others. Ted Cruz offers a “simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

When referring to privacy, as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, he said, “Please leave your cell phones on today—we want Obama to hear every word we say.”

Part II was Restore America to Leadership in the World. He talked of the dangerous vacuum created when America fails to lead. Two week ago he was in Israel and visited with Natan Sharansky, who had been in a Russian gulag near the end of the Cold War. He and fellow prisoners used to pass along Reagan’s words, when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” When he gave his simple plan: “We win. They lose.” When he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This was immediately after the ineffectual administration of Jimmy Carter. Ted Cruz was pointing out how quickly things can turn around when you change from malaise to bold leadership.

He reminded us that, when Iran appointed a terrorist as their ambassador, he put forth legislation to bar that man from entry into the country. It passed the Senate 100-0. It passed 435-0 in the House. Then, under that kind of pressure, Obama signed it. Some things need to be acted on, and Ted Cruz is willing to do that. As he put it, in his colorful way, “We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

Cruz called for rescue of Christian prisoners, such as Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned in Iran for professing his Christian faith; and Miriam Ibrahim, a lifelong Christian woman married to an American citizen, being held in Sudan for the crime of “converting” to Christianity from Islam, punishable by death. Cruz says, “Where is the president of the United States? Why isn’t he standing up on the world stage and calling for her return?  Bring our Americans home.”

Raphael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz

Part III was Bring Back Jobs and Economic Growth. He said, “For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation.” [I love that phrase and plan to use it hereafter.] And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles. Specifically, “Unleash an energy renaissance.” “Audit the Federal Reserve.” “Abolish the IRS.” And “Repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.” I think the word blessed in that context was not meant to imply those words are holy, but rather the opposite.

I got to hear his father, Pastor Raphael Cruz, earlier, in my Senate District caucus meeting, and he’s an impressive speaker as well. Ted Cruz quoted his father, who fled communist Cuba 57 years ago: “I lost my freedom once, and I’ll die before it happens again.” Ted Cruz imagined a time when our children or grandchildren could ask, “What was it like, when there was freedom?” We never want to have to answer that question. We together claim freedom. 

 

There’s plenty more to share from the convention. Wish you could have been there.

I think I’ll need another day to share highlights from some of the better speeches: Rand Paul, candidate for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and others. And there’s a whole discussion about the business of getting a party platform, which is probably worth its own post. Somewhere in the middle of this series comes Father’s Day, so we’ll have to just patiently get it all covered. So come back for eventual parts II and III.

Congressman Ted Poe Speaks

My Congressman, since redistricting a couple of years ago, is Ted Poe. He spoke Monday evening at King Street Patriots, and I thought there were enough things worth repeating.

Catherine Engelbrecht, head of King Street, gave quite an introduction. She said, “Of all of the politicians I have ever met, Congressman Ted Poe is my favorite.”

Congressman Ted Poe
at King Street Patriots, 6-2-2014

If you’ll recall, Catherine Engelbrecht testified before Congress not long ago, during hearings about the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Her testimony was powerful. So, anyway, she has met more than the typical number of politicians. And she mentioned how comforting it was to see Ted Poe's friendly face when she testified.

Ted Poe’s father was on the row in front of me. Here’s what the Congressman told us about his father. Ted Poe was listed as the seventh most conservative member of Congress (out of 435, so if you do the math, he’s at the 98^th percentile, which isn’t too shabby). Early in the morning that the news appeared, there was his dad on the phone, “Why are you only number seven?”

Ted Poe talks straightforward, Texas style. Words like this come naturally: “The Constitution is not a mere suggestion. It is the law of the land.”

This was partly, but not totally, in relation to the news over the weekend about the president unilaterally (and illegally) exchanging five dangerous terrorists being held at GITMO for a prisoner of war (or possibly a defector—still to be determined, in a court martial, I’m assuming). The Congressman offered us a three-page handout, “Fact Sheet on Guantanamo Transfers,” which was a House Armed Services Committee Press Release, June 2, 2014. You’ve probably heard the essence of this elsewhere by now. Here’s what the law requires (this law was signed by the president some six months ago):

·        The Secretary of Defense must determine that the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated and that the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

·        The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee

·        The Secretary of Defense must provide detailed information regarding the circumstances of the transfer or release along with the notification, including how the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated, the security arrangements in the receiving country, and an assessment of the capacity, willingness, and past practices of the receiving country.

So, clearly the law has been broken.

The Q&A portion of the evening was heavy with questions about what can be done in response to the president’s lawless behavior. I don’t know that there is a good answer. However, Congressman Poe is an optimist. He’s seeing protests of the president’s behavior from both sides of the aisle. He thinks the House will pick up 10 seats, and that Republicans will take the Senate as well. Then we have to have a presidential candidate that can win the 7 states that must be won. He thinks that, because most Americans are conservative, we need to appeal to conservative values. We need to be able to talk to our neighbors and speak persuasively, and get them engaged. Incidentally, he pointed out that only 5% of eligible voters participated in the runoff election held last week.

Much of the speech portion of the evening concerned the First Amendment. We’re in agreement that the very first words, “Congress shall make no law” means that, concerning those things, Congress really can’t violate our rights.

I enjoyed a story he told, of a time when he was in the midst of raising his four kids. He had a daughter who was 8, on a girls’ soccer team. The coach moved away. And somehow Ted Poe got “volunteered to coach. He knew nothing about soccer. He said the first game he ever saw was the first one he coach—rule book in hand. But he did what he could.

At one point he took a girl out of the game and replaced her with another player. She pouted and cried. He found, eventually, that this was not an uncommon reaction among young girls. But he was perplexed. There’s no crying in sports!

But eventually he figured it out, and sees this as a metaphor for us concerned citizens. The girl wanted to be in the game. She wanted to participate.

“Most Americans,” he said, “aren’t participating; they’re in the stands. But you want to play because you think you can make a difference.”

I think he’s right about that. That meeting, on a Monday night, held I’m guessing a full room of 200 people, maybe more. Our regular local tea party meetings have 30-50 people meeting on Saturday afternoons. Everyone is asking, “What can we do?”

I hope there are answers. The other day, along with the Edmund Burke quote, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” a friend sent some suggestions:

·         Support a strong party platform.

·         Contact Congress often, and instruct Congress and Senators to elect leadership who oppose tyranny.

·         Donate to true conservative candidates.

·         Stay informed.

·         Network with other patriots.

I’m doing some of these very things this weekend, at the Texas GOP Convention, where I’m a delegate. I expect to hear a lot of conservative language—nothing else would be acceptable. I pray that all of us will be able to discern between those who mean it—because we need them—and those who are just saying it because they have to. So many thousands of people will be there—because we want to do whatever good we can. I hope we can use this combined energy for the good of all.

Rage Against the (Washing) Machine

The subject matter today is trivial: my washing machine. But the underlying principles are probably worth considering.

We got our first washing machine a few weeks after our middle son, Economic Sphere, was born, when we moved into our first home, which we rented (for considerably more than we pay for our house payment now, since this was in California). We bought the washing machine and the dryer as a set. Somewhere along the way, maybe after 16 years or so, we needed to replace the dryer, because the heating element gave out. But the washer kept going.

It did a good job. For both boys I did cloth diapers, and all the other grime that goes with growing boys. I don’t mean to minimize the work, but it was doable to put dirty diapers in a pail of water with bleach, and then do wash two days a week. I used a pre-treater, and a detergent with a low amount of allergens. When we didn’t have a water conditioner, I added that, plus a fabric softener.

I had good luck with stains coming out, especially if I caught them before they went through a dryer. Really, I thought I had the laundry task relatively well in hand, all things considered.

Then, a few years ago, the machine gave out. Wouldn’t drain anymore. Wouldn’t agitate. It was pretty much dead. And, after 23 years of service it seemed like time to say farewell.

By this time, the machines on the market were all “high-efficiency.” This word does not mean what you think it means—it does not make doing laundry more efficient for the homemaker. It is supposedly more efficient in use of electricity per load and water per load.

Many of these new washers are front load, but when I listed my essentials for a new machine, I didn’t want a front load. The thing is, almost every week I start a load, turn around and find a sock on the floor or remember a towel or something that needs to get added. If I don’t get it in that load, that item has to sit in the hamper for another week until I get to the next load of that type (whites, light colors, dark colors, reds, and maybe some special load for sheets, blankets, etc.) So I wanted to be able to turn around and add an item in those first few minutes of the cycle—therefore, top load.

We got one. It’s high efficiency, a reliable brand, good ratings in the studies, etc. But while it’s a top load, it still thwarts me. The lid locks. If I find that late sock, I have to press an escape button, hard, hold for several seconds—and hope the machine gets my message. If I’m lucky, it will stop the cycle and unlock. This ends the cycle. I have to start the load over; it doesn’t pick up from where it was.

This is not an improvement.

I used to be able to do a load in the washer in about 40-45 minutes, ahead of the dryer batch, which takes about an hour, maybe 70 minutes for heavy loads. I used to be able to listen for the dryer to end; it signals. Then I would haul the next load upstairs to the laundry. But this new “high-efficiency” machine takes on average 90 minutes for a wash load. So I have to wait, and hope I remember to get upstairs when it’s done. Sometimes I’m still too early, and I’ve made a trip upstairs for nothing.

I don’t know how a machine can function for 90 minutes and use less electricity than the old one did for 45 minutes. I am doubtful that it does. But if there is an electricity savings, I doubt that it’s sufficient to cost me double the time to do laundry for every load the rest of my life. Is my time not worth a few watts of electricity which we pay for?

Then there’s the water problem. Until recently we have been going through what is considered a drought here in Houston—in the range of 42 annual inches of rainfall, rather than 52. We used to live where there was a mere 6 inches of annual precipitation. Under Houston conditions, it’s hard to be overly concerned about using enough water to rinse my clothes. Here’s the thing: the new washer doesn’t believe in using enough water to wash out the detergent.

That white stuff is detergent left after double rinse.

I kid you not, the operation manual says not to be concerned about parts of clothing that seem dry coming out of the machine; they’re still getting clean, it says. Um, no. If no water has soaked into an item of clothing, it is not being “cleaned” just by virtue of being near fabric parts that are getting wet. Not only that, fabric that comes in contact with detergent, conditioner, or fabric softener, but doesn’t get rinsed thoroughly comes out with chemicals on it. See the photo proof.

These particular jeans are a detergent magnet. Maybe because denim is a heavier fabric, I don’t know, but practically every time I wash these pants, they come out with detergent smeared all over, rather than rinsed out. I then have to put them in for another cycle—without adding more detergent. A full cycle, all by themselves, or with a couple of other affected items of similar color.

The machine offers options for smaller size loads. And I can optimize the “high-efficiency” by using less water. But I’ve found that every load must be given the full load treatment, or there is no chance it will get fully wet. Also, there are options for “heavy” load and “extra rinse,” which are essential—every time, without exception. The result on these pants in the photo, smeared with detergent, is after the heavy load, extra rinse option. True also when I find parts of shirts that are still completely dry.

So, not only do I have every load take twice as long as with my old reliable machine, I always use the maximum allowed amount of water. And then I frequently have to double electricity and water yet again by having to re-wash items that didn’t get cleaned. My guess is that, whoever decided I had to buy this kind of machine for the sake of the environment is wrong about both the energy and water usage. My old machine was more efficient. And it was a lot more efficient for me personally.

I complained about this the other night while folding laundry. Mr. Spherical Model kind of rolled his eyes and said I should just always plan on doing a second wash on those pants. Ignore any efforts for efficiency, and just adjust to what is.

That is the practical way. The less practical and more quixotic way, which I am prone to, is to work toward less government interference. Get rid of the regulators. Organize for laundry freedom. And toilet size freedom. And lightbulb freedom. Get government out of my house!

Mr. Spherical Model is sensible in that, if a person is going to make a living, serve in the community, and spend time with family, there’s not a lot of energy left over for raging against the manifold outrages of an overreaching government. Still, to say nothing seems like consent.

I don’t know what the right balance is. For today, I’m giving evidence here, in writing, that government regulators simply do not know as much about the most efficient way for me to do laundry as a woman who has been involved in the ongoing process for several decades. And the Constitution should not be construed to assume I have given my consent.

Examples of the Believers*

I was reminded the other day of a book of research put out several years ago: Amazing Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us. It’s about religion in America. The reminder fit in with what I see with the Spherical Model: religion civilizes.

Some of what I came across relates to my own religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here are some of the findings:

·         In measuring “religiosity,” Mormons registered at a high level. In other words, among those with my beliefs, my devoutness is kind of normal.

·         Mormons are more likely than most to keep their childhood religion into adulthood.

·         Religious people in America account for much of our country’s “civic virtue, altruism, and good neighborliness.” Or, in other words, our level of civilization. Among these good neighbors, Mormons are unusually charitable, giving “their means and time, both in religious and nonreligious causes” (p. 452).

·         Mormons receive a surprising amount of disapproval from other faiths (which showed up during Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns), but Mormons tend to be friendly and accepting of other faiths. They even believe that people who live their own other faith have a good chance of getting to heaven.

That’s a lot of pro-civilization there, according to the data. I’m pleased to see that. It coincides with my own world experience. One of the book’s general religious findings is this:

·         Religious Americans are better neighbors than secular Americans—more generous with their time and treasure, even for secular causes.

I’m especially pleased with the evidence that religious people increase civilization—which is what we expect from our very definition of civilization. But we live in mixed times. This past Sunday in Sunday School we talked about the cycle that shows up in the Bible. The people are in captivity. They humble themselves and turn to God. They get delivered. They prosper in freedom. They become prideful. They weaken and return to captivity.

We can see every stage of the cycle, if we look around just a little. But as a trend point, I’d say we are beyond the prospering in freedom, into weakening because of pride, and suffering increased captivity. [I read a story today showing the captivity evidence. A woman was fined because of a misunderstood Facebook post.]

I don’t want us to be stuck at this point.

As far as I have control, I can personally live in humility before God, asking for relief from captivity and for prosperity in freedom—and I can stay there by remaining humbly obedient to God’s principles. In my personal life, I never have to follow the cycle. But there are limits to what I can make of the larger world around me. I can say, simply and directly, that choosing to live the principles that lead to civilization make for a happier life. With enough of us doing that, we expand the extent of our civilization.

I came upon related article in my latest alumni magazine. As you’d expect, the two most ethical business schools show up in religious universities. Businessweek rates Notre Dame as number one, and BYU’s Marriott School of Business as number two. BYU Magazine has a long piece on ethical dilemmas. Professors Bradley Agle and Bill O'Rourke have gathered and categorized dilemmas into 13 categories. Among those discussed in the piece are:

·         Conflict of Interest

·         Unethical Request from an Authority Figure

·         Sacrifice of Personal Values

·         You Made a Promise, and the World Changes

·         Intervention—or Turning a Blind Eye

They take real-life examples, discuss the appropriate questions to ask, and suggest what each of the authors would do. This is some deep thinking, and not easy. But the purpose is not to find just an acceptable response—because any response can be justified somehow. It’s about finding the best response. As Agle puts it, the answer to a conflict of interest, for example, isn’t whether you can come up with an ethical justification for what you are doing. “Because in most cases, you can.” So the question should be, is your behavior above potential reproach?

An example in the “unethical request” category was about a cancer-causing carcinogen found near an Alcoa plant. The carcinogen couldn’t be traced to the plant. The legal response could easily be to do nothing. But O’Rourke asked the question, “What would the best company in the world do?” Alcoa took that and made the decision to deliver bottled water to everyone in the community, and to install filters.

O’Rourke asks the question, “Is there honor in business? I think so.” In fact, there are questions of honor in every aspect of life, and business is just a big part of that.

Agle sees his career, as an ethicist, as living his religious values, and helping others live them: “If we are truly living our values, we should be more of a light on the hill than we are in the business world.” He adds, “I get paid to figure out, what does it mean to follow Christ? In my particular area, I focus on how you do that in a career….If you come right down to it, that’s what this life is about: it’s ethics.”

Growing and expanding civilization, helping people thrive is a simple matter of a critical mass of people choosing to live righteously according to God’s rules. In reality, what is simple is not always easy.

I love the basic principle that more of us living religious lives is good for civilization; that is true. But I also love how these ethicists are about even more. They're about how those of us already in that camp can refine our efforts, can be better at figuring out what is right to do in situations where the difference between right and wrong, and even between good, better, and best options are not as obvious. The more each of us lives better, the better off all of us are.

___________________________________

* Title comes from St. Paul's words in 1 Timothy 4:12, "...be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity."

 

 

Always Remember

This is possibly the only Memorial Day we will have our soldier, son Economic Sphere, deployed in a semi-dangerous part of the world, 15 time zones away. So I’m thinking of this one particular live soldier, especially, while we honor the many heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country and the civilization we love.

There may be other years where he is still far from home. But, God willing, those places will be more like Hawaii—a destination spot, where we’d love to drop in for a visit. And while he is gone, we can video chat, which is something way beyond what soldiers and their families enjoyed even a decade ago. Trying not to complain.

In the meantime, we are having a cookout, despite rain, with relatives. We’re doing what many people do with this holiday—marking the beginning of summer. But the reason we can celebrate in peace, with family, with plenty of food and relaxing good times—is because of the sacrifice of so many. We thank them.

I’ve collected a few images for Memorial Day. This first one I found a year ago, although it's from 2012.

Dave Granlund, Memorial Day 2012

 

Marcus Luttrell, Navy Seal
author of Lone Survivor
at WWII Memorial
photo found on Facebook, source uncertain, original here

 

Marine Corps War Memorial
Photo from Shawn Rogers Facebook page
original here

These Allegations Will Not Be Tolerated

The latest scandal is, in short, that dozens of veterans died from lack of care, when their needs were postponed, and the long wait times were hidden, possibly so that the books looked better and the division could “earn” efficiency bonuses. It’s been in the news the past couple of weeks. It wasn’t going away. People feel kind of strongly against letting our war heroes die of bureaucracy.

Matt Groening cartoon, found here

Finally Wednesday the president did the brave thing and gave a speech about it. This was no collection of off-the-cuff remarks. He made use of the entire week-plus to write down his thoughts, and calculate their effect to do the most good. And he carefully read them from the teleprompter so as not to cause any undue confusion about his meaning.

Before we begin, may I suggest, it would be appropriate to re-read the transcript with a combination of voices: Ted Baxter, from the newsroom on the Mary Tyler Moore Show; Captain Renault, the character in Casablanca, who is “Shocked! Shocked! To find that gambling is going on here” moments before accepting his winnings; and a lengthy list of politicians (including this president) who choose the passive voice construction, “mistakes were made.”

The president expressed his strong displeasure—with the allegations being tossed around. His precise words:

So when I hear allegations of misconduct—any misconduct—whether it’s allegations of VA staff covering up long wait times or cooking the books, I will not stand for it. Not as Commander-in-Chief, but also not as an American. None of us should.  So if these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it -- period. [emphasis mine]

What won’t he stand for? Hearing allegations of any misconduct. “It” is dishonorable; “it” is disgraceful, meaning allegations, apparently (or possibly only true ones he'd rather were not made) which he will not tolerate—“period.” And that “period” word, we know from experience with this president—“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period”—means something other than “and that’s final,” which it could so easily be mistaken for by the rest of us.

Remember, these are the carefully crafted words he chose to read after many days of wordsmithing. So we should assume he means to say them. He simply will not tolerate allegations.

In his carefully crafted speech, he made first, second, and third points, followed by “number four” and a “final point.” They are, in summary:

1)      Anyone found guilty of falsifying records will be held accountable, in such ways as being put on administrative leave (possibly paid?) To find out if anyone is guilty is the purpose of beginning an investigation, with no known facts yet.

2)      The president himself (“I”) wants to know “the full scope of this problem,” meaning the allegations previously referred to? Or possibly actual wrongdoing if any is eventually uncovered. Toward that end, he has ordered VA Secretary Eric Shinseki (hereafter referred to intimately as “Ric,” even though the president hadn’t met with him for more than two years) to investigate the organization he leads and has an incentive to make look better than it is.

3)       The president has assigned Rob Nabors, Deputy Director of the Office of Management & Budget (hereafter referred to intimately as “Rob”) “to conduct a broader review of the Veterans Health Administration—the part of the VA that delivers health care to our veterans.  And Rob is going to Phoenix today,” where the specific allegations occurred. (Nonsequitur intended?)

a.       And as a sub-point, the president reminds us that getting care to veterans has been a problem for decades.

                                                              i.      And as a sub-sub-point, the president reminds us that he campaigned on this important issue, and during his 5 ½ years in office, he and his people “have been working really hard” to fix these problems. (In case you want to know what government health care will look like after 5 ½ years of these expert bureaucrats working really hard on it, consider this a preview.)

4)      The president welcomes Congress, in their oversight role; however, he warns us all that this shouldn’t be a “political football” because so many veterans are getting care.

5)      We must remain focused (as he supposedly has been all along) on the overall mission of getting care to veterans.

a.       We’ve made progress.

                                                              i.      Historic investments (despite significant cutbacks in military spending?)

                                                            ii.      Boosted funding, that is consistent and reliable.

                                                          iii.      2 million new veterans got veterans services in the last 5 years. (I don’t know what this means exactly, but I was able to learn that 5.4 million of current veterans are those who served between the 1991 Gulf War and 2012. And 1.8 total veterans are age 35 or younger. So claiming a sudden influx since 2008 is probably an exaggeration.)

                                                          iv.      Have given disability to those exposed to Agent Orange during Vietnam. (VA has offered health services for those exposed during Vietnam, up through about 1971, but has long tried to deny treatment for later exposure when the contaminated aircraft continued to be used. An independent study released in February contradicted the VA’s claims.)

                                                            v.      The president claims there have been improvements (undefined) in ease of getting treatment for PTSD and other mental disorders, and care for women.

                                                          vi.      “In the past year alone the backlog has been slashed by half” (unless the allegations of falsifying records to make backlogs seem less are actually true).

                                                        vii.      The VA has been reducing homelessness, helping with education through the GI bill (ongoing since WWII), and Michelle and Jill are somehow personally helping veterans find jobs.

                                                      viii.      To restate the final point, “caring for our veterans is not an issue that popped up in recent weeks”; we could easily just say this is Bush’s fault.

Then he took questions briefly. He said responsibility lies with him, and there will be accountability (undefined). Ric will keep his position unless-and-until he feels unable to do the job, because he’s been doing such good work thus far. (Watch for this assessment to change in coming days; remember Reverend Wright.) He did not respond to the question about whether the allegations were a surprise to him, but according to an earlier press briefing, Jay Carney said the president learned about it when he read it in the paper, as is so common with this administration, and he’s “Shocked! Shocked!” that there could be such allegations.

So, in summary, there will be an internal investigation of the suspects done by the suspects, and some begrudged oversight from Congress will be allowed. The president defends the hard work and caring he’s accomplished with his laser-like focus on veteran care thus far; he sees no problem here, just unfounded allegations. People under investigation are already on (paid?) administrative leave. And that’s just about as tough as it needs to get. You can take his word for it. He won’t stand for it—i.e., these allegations—period.

Distortions

I’ve been traveling, for a niece’s wedding, so I appreciate my son Political Sphere filling in for me last week. (I’d like him to write more here, but it’s not that easy to fit writing time into a busy law-student life, so we appreciate what we can get.)

It’s been a week since I finished reading the latest book club book, but it’s still on my mind. Snow Flower and the Secret Fan is a novel by Lisa See, about the life of women in pre-modern China. Her writing is well done, and her research is thorough. Still, it takes something of a strong stomach to read this. I kept having two competing thoughts: I thought ancient China was always held up as one of the world’s great civilizations. But this is not civilization.

The Spherical Model description of civilization is different from the usual. You’ll probably see large cities, great art and architecture, and books and learning. But there’s more. Here’s a review of what civilization looks like:

In the northern circle that is the goal—Civilization—families typically remain intact, and children are raised in loving homes, with caring parents who guide their education and training, dedicating somewhere between 18 and 25 years for that child to reach adulthood, and who then remain interested in their children’s success for the rest of their lives.

Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors, helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in appreciation, without fear.

There is a thriving free-enterprise economy. Poverty is meaningless; even though there will always be a lowest earning 10% defined as poor, in a civilized society these lowest earners have comfortable shelter and adequate food and clothing—and there’s the possibility of rising, or at least for future generations to rise.

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

People feel free to choose their work, their home, their family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Where there are questions about those limits, laws are in place to help clarify boundaries of civilized behavior. When someone willingly infringes on the rights or safety of another, the law functions to protect that victim as well as society from further uncivilized behavior from the offender.

What we see in the world Lisa See shows us has a lot of poverty, even among the more well off. There is some possibility of rising from a lower class to one a little higher, but it takes a lot of luck and favoritism. Most disturbing, among many cruelties, is the disdain for women. Everyone accepts this, including the women. They all know that only boy babies have value. A woman’s only value is accrued by birthing boy babies. And her only hope is to get the opportunity to marry up and provide sons—and then there is some respect for her in her old age, which is likely to end around age 40 (but in this novel, the storyteller lives to an unusually ancient 80-something).

How does a woman gain the interest of a husband who might be a step up? (Rather, she gains the interest of the families and matchmakers who arrange the whole thing; the husband won't know her before the marriage.) She must be trained to serve and meet his every need—while moving around on tiny feet. Very tiny. The size of a thumb. Which is, of course, not physiologically possible. So the way they get to this goal is to take young girls, starting around age 6, and binding their feet, breaking the bones and distorting them to fold under themselves into a grotesque and unusable stubbiness. A woman can, if lucky, sway “gracefully” to get slowly from spot to spot. But walking distances is made undoable. So, even though poverty-stricken, she cannot travel without bearers carrying her on a palanquin, or with some man being willing to give her a piggyback ride. She spends her days either in the kitchen, doing her drudgery while handicapped, or in an upstairs room, doing hand-sewing and looking out on the world she hasn’t been able to experience since early childhood.

The author gives a fair amount of detail about that binding process—the pain inflicted by the elder women, with a distorted combination of passing on the pain they experienced and fear that if they don’t do it, they condemn the daughter to a life of enslavement. Infection and death are relatively common, but considered worth the risk. The pain would probably be less if feet were simply amputated.

One insight from the book is that, despite their efforts to the contrary, parents do have caring feelings for their daughters; they can’t help themselves. Even in these often unhealthy family situations, love for family is practically unconquerable.

The distortion, however, got me thinking. There were, of course, some signs of civilization in China. Those could only appear where the laws of civilization are followed. But the decay tends to accompany and tear down. The foot-binding had to be such a decay, a distortion of what is beauty.

Do we have distortions in our world? I think we do.

Stratification is always a problem: the belief that one level of people is more innately valuable than others, by virtue of birth circumstances, rather than character. Blind justice, and the American Dream of being able to work hard and move up—those are civilized ideas most of the world, now and historically, has failed to experience.

Then there’s the decay-inducing problem of objectifying people. Whether it is women who are objectified, or people of a race or other group, it’s wrong. And yet we have signs of it increasing around us. The idea that a woman is only lovable/valuable if she looks like a sex object (a standard even Victoria's Secret models don’t meet without photo editing) is a distortion. Real women don’t typically look like that. Real women have all kinds of varieties of shapes and sizes that can all be beautiful. The belief that only those who fit the model deserve love—and the accompanying wealth and happiness that are supposed to come from marrying up—leads to bodily distortions: anorexia and other eating disorders, obsession with exercise to earn worth rather than to improve health, botox, breast implants and other body-and-face-reshaping plastic surgery…. There may be healthy reasons for some of those things (recovery from scars of accident or cancer surgery, for example), but earning worthiness to be loved is not one of them.

Another distortion of womanhood is the idea that being less like a woman and more like a man leads to greater value. Running the business, being ruthlessly dedicated to the job, instead of tied down to family—as if that makes a woman more valuable than making the choice to be a mother who raises children. If a woman has to choose against her nature, in order to “earn” her worth, is that any less distorting than foot-binding?

If I spent more time on this reflection, I’m sure I’d find more distress signals of decay in our civilization. But this is enough for one post.

It continues to be true that civilization—growth into thriving civilization, and keeping it—requires living the laws of civilization. The formula always includes honoring and obeying God, who provides us with our inalienable rights—and worth; and protecting and preserving family as the basic unit of society, in order to teach the love for one another (and ourselves) that God wants us to enjoy. Whatever “foot-binding” we come upon, let’s stop it, and love each other instead, as innately valuable children of God.