Lift Up Your Hearts!

When Terri Schiavo dies, there's going to be cheering, and I don't understand why. I know there will be cries of exultation because of the commentary I've heard, and the rude jesting, even from as mainstream a production as National Public Radio's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. Perhaps people make light of tragedy in self-defense; I know my family was able to find humor even as our father lay dying. There was, however, an enormous difference: our humor was suffused with an undeniable love for the man and a determination to do all we could for him.

Why are we laughing now, and why will we cheer? Terri is someone's daughter. I will not say she is someone's wife, because I don't think Michael Schiavo will be sad to see his wife die. Perhaps he still loves Terri, although his living with another woman, with whom he has two children, tends to provoke doubt. I assume he accepted losing her years ago, and has no more grief left to give at her death. But Terri's parents still love their daughter dearly, and why would anyone exult in another's grief? Perhaps the hard-hearted would say the body Terri's parents treat so tenderly is not really their daughter, and when she dies they will lose nothing they haven't already lost. Even so—when a family's house burns to the ground, and they lose the treasured, irreplaceable pictures of their children, do we cheer? Don't we mourn with them? Is Terri worth less than a photograph?

Some, no doubt, will just be happy the prolonged battle is over, but they will be wrong. All three branches of government have been invited into a personal, private, agonizing medical decision—not to mention the Fourth Estate in all its glory, and voyeristic lay people all over the world. This camel's nose will not easily be shoved out of our tent. For that we should grieve, if nothing else.

The Orlando Sentinel recently published a letter by a local community college professor expressing his disgust over a new Florida law that requires an American flag to be displayed in the classroom in which he teaches. I took issue with some of his points, and wrote a letter to the Sentinel in response. When the editor called to let me know that they would be publishing my letter, she very kindly said, "We haven't heard from you in a while." It's nice to be missed! You can read Professor Scolaro's letter and my response on the Sentinel website. I'm also putting mine below, in case the Sentinel link breaks, which it's bound to do eventually.

---

Valencia Community College professor John Scolaro raises some interesting questions in his discussion of the state-mandated display of American flags in public college classrooms. “What value does the placement of an American flag have within the context of any classroom?” he asks. Very little, I would agree. It’s a silly law, like many of the bureaucratic rules that bedevil our country. Equally ridiculous, however, is the thought that such a flag poses an impediment to free speech and controversial dialogue.

“Who would dare criticize America with a flag shimmering in your face?” Just about anyone! Having grown up in the 60’s and 70’s, with flags in every classroom and the Pledge of Allegiance recited every morning, did not hinder my generation from criticizing America with great vigor, in class and out.

“Suppose I decide to blow my nose on one of the flags, or remove it from its holder, or even burn it. What then?” Then, Professor Scolaro, you would be rude, uncivilized, and unworthy of the teaching profession. Long ago I decided not to participate in group recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, but never doubted that basic human courtesy requires me to stand, quietly and respectfully, in the presence of others for whom the exercise is meaningful.

A private school could and should object to a government-mandated flag display in its classrooms. Any thinking person might reasonably question the cost/benefit ratio of such a law. However, someone who would seriously be disturbed by the presence of a state or national flag in his state-run, state-funded classroom should consider that he may have chosen the wrong institution in which to work.

It appears that Boston could not have two big winners this year. If they could have chosen, I wonder how many would have traded the Red Sox World Series win for a Kerry victory?

John Kerry has conceded, and President Bush is expected to declare his victory. That speech will be the first critical act of his second term. It needs to be humble, conciliatory, positive, respectful, encouraging, and unifying. These are not attitudes that Bush's speeches project very well. Whether the fault is in him or in his speechwriters, the ultimate responsibility lies with the one who speaks the words, and he needs to change his attitude and/or find himself some better speechwriters. Kudos to Kerry for having the grace not to subject the country to weeks of agonizing legal battles.
Bush will be working on the strength of the popular vote victory he didn't have last time, and of gains in both the House and the Senate. That's all the more reason he should be humble. The bitter fight is over, but the wounds are deep. Half the country is frustrated and unhappy—probably a great deal more than half, given the number of people who voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. I am not suggesting the the President—or any of us—compromise on basic principles, but only that we desperately need to work together and find common ground and common good. Attitude is half the battle, and President Bush has another chance to prove himself a true leader. I pray that he has learned much from his mistakes of the past, and will have the grace and humility to lead the country in forgiving and in seeking forgiveness; in admitting fault and in setting right what is wrong; and in standing firmly for his principles while treating with respect those who would oppose him, always seeking for areas of agreement and recognizing that which is good in his opponents.

Thus far I have tried to remain fairly nonpartisan in my political commentary, but the time has come to take a stand. I have been a Democrat all my voting life, although I’ve been gradually coming to realize that the party I thought represented compassion and liberty acts in reality as if it cared no more—and in many ways less—about such things than the Republicans.

George W. Bush has sufficiently disappointed and embarrassed me that the Democrats probably could have saved my vote by putting forth a moderate candidate who would present himself as a positive alternative. Instead, they chose John Kerry.

Without detailing the intellectual and visceral internal debate behind my voting choices, I include some brief comments on the issues both candidates seem to think paramount, based on their advertising rhetoric:

Iraq and the War on Terror

While decrying specific actions and policies, I withhold judgment on the general nature of Bush’s approach to both wars. Nothing intelligent can be said until we have the advantage of looking back from an as yet unknown future. Even Europe’s biggest newspaper, Germany’s Bild, recognized that when it gave its endorsement to President Bush. (Quotation from TurkishPress.com)

Noting widespread opposition to Bush in Europe, Bild said that history had proved another conservative Republican US president, Ronald Reagan, to have been on the right side of history.

"We thank him for the end of the Cold War and reunification. It is very possible, that we will also be thankful to George W. Bush one day," it said.

It is also possible that electing Kerry might bring us more support from other countries, not because of anything he might or might not do, but because a new president would offer a face-saving way for opponents to turn around. On the other hand, I think that removing Bush from office sends a very bad message to our enemies in Iraq and to terrorists everywhere: that Americans are weak, undisciplined, and best of all, impatient, easily discouraged by difficult, drawn-out work, easily fooled into complacency. What our enemies lack in technological firepower, they more than make up for in patience, and must find our fast-food attitudes toward warfare contemptible. Bush has had four years to make and learn from mistakes; what we do not need now is a new set of people and a new set of mistakes.

The Economy

I speak as one for whom the exportation of American jobs is personal reality, not political rhetoric: President Bush did not cause the problem, and a President Kerry cannot solve it. It is the reality of the global economy, the down side of the same system that brings us low-priced toasters and telephone service. Presidents are happy to take credit for good economic times, and their opponents glad to blame them when the economy turns sour, but in reality the forces are largely out of their control. Sound economic policy is like a healthy lifestyle: for lasting, positive change we need the equivalent of good eating and exercise habits. A presidential candidate’s promise of better economic times is as useless—and sometimes as harmful—as a crash diet.

Health Care

The trouble with both candidates is that they think they can fix America’s health care problems by governmental action. That’s even more foolish than expecting to solve our educational problems with No Child Left Behind or any other program. As with education, the health care problem is deeply rooted in the system itself; in many ways, the system IS the problem. The more a candidate pretends that he has the power to fix either one, the more I fear that his meddling will do lasting damage.

The Verdict

Tomorrow I will cast my ballot for Bush/Cheney. I wish I could be voting for someone instead of against someone else. I wish my own Democratic Party would come up with a candidate whose positions don’t violate my basic principles. I wish we could have an election in which issues were honestly discussed, and candidates would speak respectfully of their opponents’ virtues even while explaining how they would do a better job. (Stranger things have happened—the Boston Red Sox won the World Series!) In the meantime, I will try to vote intelligently, to practice patience, and to remember that, no matter what, God is still in control (and is never up for re-election).

As I have written previously, I believe that Florida's voting procedures in 2000 were as fair and accurate as any in the country, and better than some.

I have no such assurance this year. Four years ago, any irregularities were minor and mostly attributable to innocent mistakes. Now everyone knows that Florida matters, and the stakes are so high that I no longer trust either side to resist the temptation to pretend that the ends can justify the means. The negative ads, on both sides and at all levels, have convinced me of one thing: that neither side can be expected to take the high moral ground on anything important.

Between "early voting" and the misuse of the absentee ballot system, chances of fraud, collusion, and coercion are high, and the chance of knowing the results in a timely matter is low.

People who tried the new early voting system found themselves harassed and harangued, as the rules against polling place electioneering were discovered to apply only to election day. Others, who thought they were registered to vote, discovered too late that their registrations had disappeared. There is a huge push for people to vote, vote, vote!—it doesn't matter if you know anything or care about anything, just vote!—as if the act of voting were a magical spell to bring forth wise decisions. And the state is crawling with Carpetbaggers, folks from other states here for the sole purpose of meddling in our election!

Whatever our Founding Fathers may have had in mind for democratic elections, they never dreamed of this.

Get your news first, from Crickler! Their nifty little puzzles often alert me to interesting news stories, which I follow up with my favorite overall news source, Google News. Today's intriguing tidbit has been a little hard to pin down, as the full story at Salon.com requires a subscription. Supposedly you can get a "one day pass" to read it if you watch an advertisment, but I sat through the thing twice and still was asked to register, so I gave up and will wait till a free news source covers the story. However, since I was asked my opinion, I'll quote the beginning (free) part of the story:

One theory is that the President was receiving some sort of assistance during the debate, which would make Bush the immoral, irresponsible idiot of his opponents' visions. I have a few thoughts of my own, and have gathered more from other folks:

• It is some sort of security device, like a bulletproof vest, or an "explosives sniffer," or something else that for obvious reasons he wouldn't want to advertise.
• It's a medical gadget for relieving back or shoulder pain.
• Unbeknownst to both the Secret Service and CBS News, the President was kidnapped by terrorists and now wears a bomb strapped to his back.
• Some graphic artist had too much time on his hands. (I no longer believe everything I see; I've seen too many lies told with pictures.)
• If the President wanted to cheat on this "exam," he should have asked a high school student for advice on how to be more effective and less obvious about it.
• If it's possible to "hear" advice through one's back (or shoulder), this should cause a greater uproar in the Deaf community than cochlear implants. (It's hard to believe that anything audible to Bush's ear would have been neither heard by someone else nor picked up by the microphones.)
• The election year political scene is squirrelier than our backyard!

Did you know that? Do you care? Probably not, unless you live in Boston.

A senator from Boston, with a name like Kerry? Of course he's Irish! At least that's what everyone thought, and—Boston politics being what they are—Kerry did not dispel the illusion. It was only when the Boston Globe hired a genealogist to look into Kerry's ancestry that it was revealed that he is not Irish at all, and that the Kerry name is only as old as his grandfather, who changed it from Kohn.

When the story broke, Kerry handled it well, pointing out that he had never actually claimed to be Irish, and took advantage of the opportunity to endear himself to another part of his constituency, proudly acknowledging his Jewish ancestors.

What difference does it make? Certainly none in this election. Boston voters can easily understand how someone might want to appear Irish, and as easily forgive him for the sake of his political views. Nonetheless, in a political culture that ferrets out, dissects, analyzes, and trumpets every insignificant detail of a candidate's history, proclaiming by word and action the triumph of trivia over larger truths—in such an atmostphere I'm astounded that I haven't heard more on the subject. I know about it because we lived in Massachusetts when the story broke, and it was a big event at the time.

Even Christianity Today, in an article on Kerry's eclectic religious background and beliefs, failed to mention the family's conversion to Catholicism, which surely must have played a part in the formation of his world view.

Merely asking the question is my own contribution to the trivialization of politics, but the silence still puzzles me.

That's not how I customarily describe our houseguests, but this one is a friend from Rochester, NY whose purpose in visiting is primarily to work for the success of the man I would like to see defeated in the upcoming presidential election. Are we "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

 

Well, an opponent does not need to be an enemy, and I have to admire our friend's willingness to work for what he believes in, giving up his vacation time to boot. I haven't actively campaigned for someone since I worked for the Humphrey-Muskie ticket, and that was before I could vote. That's a little embarrassing, since we have a friend who ran for the U.S. Senate, but it's the truth. We vote, we talk, we provide financial support—but Don's actually down there at headquarters, working. You have to respect that.

And the dinner-table discussions are definitely stimulating!

As Floridians, we've had to endure too many jokes about Florida's elections. I challenge any state to stand up to the scrutiny Florida received after the last presidential election. Many states simply couldn't have done a recount, because they have no permanent record of individual votes. I've voted in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and Florida's system holds up well in comparison. Even after the 2000 election, we found that it would have been easy to cheat in Massachusetts, if we had wanted to. I'm not going to complain about their system, because it was nice to feel trusted. But it was certainly a surprise not to have to provide any form of ID when we voted.

I also like Florida's paper ballots. (We had paper ballots in Massachusetts, too.) We've used both the punch-card ("hanging chad" style) and the fill-in-the-circle (standardized test style) ballots, and despite what you've heard on the news, they are not hard to understand! I'm old fashioned enough to think that someone too clueless to understand the simple ballots, or too lazy to take the time to make sure he has filled his out correctly, or unwilling to ask for help if needed, probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
Which brings me to today's Fox Trot cartoon. I trust the old system far more than the highly-touted computerized voting. I know too much about comptuers to trust them with the future of our country. Though it may already be too late. Consider how many parts of our lives are vulnerable to computer problems!