I find it difficult not to write something on the passing of Walter Cronkite. He was so much a part of the lives of all of us who lived through the decades of the 1960's and the 1970's. Those who have no living memory of those years will not understand the kind of attachment we had to Walter Cronkite. I heard one younger person state that after all he was 92 and just maybe suggesting 'what's the big deal'.
I believe it was Bob Schiffer who stated that in fact Walter Cronkite was the news. It has also been mentioned that he is the one who brought us the news of the Kennedy assasination, Civil Rights marches and protests, the Moon landing, the assassinations of MLK and RFK., and the events of the Vietnam War. Noteworthy also is his documentary on the Vietnam War after which Lyndon Johnson is to have said, "if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost Middle America."
These are important facts, but they don't capture the connection we felt to Walter Cronkite. At 6:30 p.m. I would turn on the television and watch the Evening News. However, I was not alone. Millions of other Americans and their families were watching the same newscast at the same time. We were watching it together. During my years at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore we were literally watching Walter Cronkite together in our recreation area. Together we sat listening to him in shock, numbness, and profound sadness during the entire week of coverage of the Kennedy assasination. In short we were not just connected to Walter Cronkite, but we were connected to each other through him.
It is not possible to duplicate the way TV held all of our attention at the same time during those years. Our choices then were limited to three major networks. Technology has changed all that, either for the better or the worse. But from 1962 to 1981 Walter Cronkite held sway in our living rooms. Today, we don't even hear the same news. We hear the news which fits our own preconceived notions whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC the Internet or the Daly Show. Those looking for a more balanced perspective might watch parts of all these media outlets and then distill out what they believe to be the actual news of the day. Walter Cronkite, however, was the news.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Pope and President Meet
The headline seems to be that the Pope stressed life issues in his meeting with the President, and was firm on abortion and stem cell research. While I'm sure the Pope did just that, I doubt that constitutes an accurate assessment of the overall purpose of this papal and presidential get together. Do you think that extraordinary efforts were made to insure that these two men met at this time in order for the Pope to reiterate his stance on abortion? Couldn't he have just mailed his statement in? Does anyone not know what the Pope believes about abortion?
Benedict XVI is walking a fine diplomatic line in his dealings with the new President. There is every indication that he has warm feelings toward the vision and direction of the President's policies. As has already been noted by many, his new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate is significantly to the left of the new President. Yet the new thrust of the growing number of conservative bishops in the United States is to target this presidency on abortion policies and to attack him at every turn. Their efforts to have his invitation to speak at Notre Dame rescinded is indicative of that approach.
Benedict XVI needed to assure his bishops that he was on their side, so the message that was released stressed his comments on abortion. Yet at the same time he has also implied in various ways that he is not totally pleased with the bishops' behavior. According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Apostolic Nuncio, who is the Pope's personal representative in the United States has told the bishops that there are a number of areas where they can work in concert with President Obama, and to tone down the Anti-Obama rhetoric. In Nicholas Cafardi's article it was also noted that the Pope met the President at 4 p.m. which is against papal protocol, and simply is not done in Rome during the month of July. This concession was apparently made to accommodate the president's tight schedule. Finally, a former Papal theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier, recently praised the President's approach on abortion that seeks to find common ground and implement strategies designed to reduce the number of abortions.
Those who only have interest in one issue will not be able to understand what is going on here. If abortion is the only issue that matters, why have anything to do with someone who does not support your position? The Pope however is juggling a few additional matters that he considers important. Despite the rants of conservative church leaders and lay persons, the Pope still actually cares about the Middle East peace process. He cares about a draw down of troops in Iraq, and new strategies in Afghanistan. He actually cares about problems in Africa as well as the problems of the poor. He is concerned about the global economic crisis. His new encyclical is a dramatic reaffirmation of Catholic Social Teaching going back to Leo XIII. He was anxious to actually confer with the President and receive an update on progress on these issues.
In addition he demonstrated an important Christian quality that all of us tend to forget at times in an effort to promote our own point of view. He demonstrated respect for another individual. In so doing he affirmed the worth and dignity of all human beings. He showed that he was able to see value and dignity even in someone with whom he has disagreements, and even with someone who is not part of his own Roman Catholic Communion.
I believe both Benedict XVI and Barack Obama have given us a lesson that we would all do well to learn. We cannot treat people with genuine respect if we do not believe that they represent something valuable even if their beliefs differ from our own. Refusal to admit the possibility of error makes it difficult to find value in the opinions of others. Humility and acknowledgement of our own limitations might help us all to recognize good will, genuineness, and sincerity, in those around us. We might all learn more if we actually listen to what others are saying.
Benedict XVI is walking a fine diplomatic line in his dealings with the new President. There is every indication that he has warm feelings toward the vision and direction of the President's policies. As has already been noted by many, his new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate is significantly to the left of the new President. Yet the new thrust of the growing number of conservative bishops in the United States is to target this presidency on abortion policies and to attack him at every turn. Their efforts to have his invitation to speak at Notre Dame rescinded is indicative of that approach.
Benedict XVI needed to assure his bishops that he was on their side, so the message that was released stressed his comments on abortion. Yet at the same time he has also implied in various ways that he is not totally pleased with the bishops' behavior. According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Apostolic Nuncio, who is the Pope's personal representative in the United States has told the bishops that there are a number of areas where they can work in concert with President Obama, and to tone down the Anti-Obama rhetoric. In Nicholas Cafardi's article it was also noted that the Pope met the President at 4 p.m. which is against papal protocol, and simply is not done in Rome during the month of July. This concession was apparently made to accommodate the president's tight schedule. Finally, a former Papal theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier, recently praised the President's approach on abortion that seeks to find common ground and implement strategies designed to reduce the number of abortions.
Those who only have interest in one issue will not be able to understand what is going on here. If abortion is the only issue that matters, why have anything to do with someone who does not support your position? The Pope however is juggling a few additional matters that he considers important. Despite the rants of conservative church leaders and lay persons, the Pope still actually cares about the Middle East peace process. He cares about a draw down of troops in Iraq, and new strategies in Afghanistan. He actually cares about problems in Africa as well as the problems of the poor. He is concerned about the global economic crisis. His new encyclical is a dramatic reaffirmation of Catholic Social Teaching going back to Leo XIII. He was anxious to actually confer with the President and receive an update on progress on these issues.
In addition he demonstrated an important Christian quality that all of us tend to forget at times in an effort to promote our own point of view. He demonstrated respect for another individual. In so doing he affirmed the worth and dignity of all human beings. He showed that he was able to see value and dignity even in someone with whom he has disagreements, and even with someone who is not part of his own Roman Catholic Communion.
I believe both Benedict XVI and Barack Obama have given us a lesson that we would all do well to learn. We cannot treat people with genuine respect if we do not believe that they represent something valuable even if their beliefs differ from our own. Refusal to admit the possibility of error makes it difficult to find value in the opinions of others. Humility and acknowledgement of our own limitations might help us all to recognize good will, genuineness, and sincerity, in those around us. We might all learn more if we actually listen to what others are saying.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Let's Talk About Health Care
The effort to reform our health care system has been going on since the time of the Truman administration. For those of us who have difficulty counting, that is more than 6o years. Almost no one doubts that there are serious problems with our health care system and significant change needs to occur. The issue is not a partisan one, as there was a big push for health care reform under Richard Nixon. With legitimate bipartisan concerns about the costs, the inequities, and the problems of the uninsured why can't we get this job done?
We keep seeing the same pattern repeat itself. There is initially great enthusiasm for reform and the polls show overwhelming support for improving the system. Yet as we get closer to making it happen, the enthusiasm wanes, the polls shift, and nothing changes. Clearly the devil is in the details. Yet what details are we talking about, and is the rhetoric getting in the way of completing the task?
The fact is that powerful forces are arrayed against health care reform. These forces don't seem to be interested in the details. They just want to see reform fail. This time we don't even seem to know where this resistance is coming from. The expectation was that this time would be different. Doctors, employers, insurance companies are all at the table. Yet the rhetoric we are hearing is the same or worse than what we heard during the Hillarycare debate. The jargon of socialized medicine, government takeover, and the loss of your own personal physician is alive and well. It seems to me it is one thing to debate the details and hammer out a solution that will forge a meaningful consensus. It is another thing to continue to rant and rave about things that are simply untrue. Such rhetoric suggests a determination to kill any bill as opposed to working for a better bill.
What can be done to get sonething done this year in the face of this opposition? Is the opposition just coming from Republicans in congress who are determined to see this President fail? Are Democrats and liberals also at fault for insisting on a bill that meets their criteria, even insisting on a single payer system which simply does not have enough support to become law? I guess for me the bottom line is what is the point of supporting a policy, no matter how good it may be, if it is not possible to enact it into law? As is often said, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.
I believe success will require a bi-partisan approach. What we need to look for is a bill that nobody really likes. Then we will know we have achieved a true compromise. The notion that the Democratic congress should pass whatever it chooses with just 51 votes is not a good idea. The progress that has been made thus far has come from a coalition of all interested parties agreeing to several points. These include, the need to insure the uninsured, the need to reduce costs, and especially the need for a universal mandate. The fact is if everybody doesn't participate you will not have a buy in from the wealthy or the young who feel they don't need insurance. Social Security has worked because everyone is required to pay in. Auto insurance has been effective because you must purchase insurance to operate a vehicle. Universal insurance dramatically increases the pool making it possible to hold down costs and eliminate preexisting conditions. The focus must be what is best for our country and our people, not what is best for me.
Therefore, I believe the Senate compromise being fashioned by Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley is the way to go. To reach an effective compromise each party will have to let something go and recognize they can not have everything they want. I believe the health-care "cooperatives" that are being talked about may offer some interesting possibilities for the bill, especially if they can be worked into some kind of acceptable "public option". After the bill is crafted amendments can be offered to improve the bill. I believe this process is the best way to achieve success. Sixty years is long enough to wait for this program to be enacted. Let's get this job done. If it doesn't come out perfect we can certainly tinker with it in future years, just as the prescription drug program passed by the Bush administration needs some work. The notion, however that we need to take our time and not rush into health care reform is ludicrous. The fact is, time is running out. Let's get this job done, now.
We keep seeing the same pattern repeat itself. There is initially great enthusiasm for reform and the polls show overwhelming support for improving the system. Yet as we get closer to making it happen, the enthusiasm wanes, the polls shift, and nothing changes. Clearly the devil is in the details. Yet what details are we talking about, and is the rhetoric getting in the way of completing the task?
The fact is that powerful forces are arrayed against health care reform. These forces don't seem to be interested in the details. They just want to see reform fail. This time we don't even seem to know where this resistance is coming from. The expectation was that this time would be different. Doctors, employers, insurance companies are all at the table. Yet the rhetoric we are hearing is the same or worse than what we heard during the Hillarycare debate. The jargon of socialized medicine, government takeover, and the loss of your own personal physician is alive and well. It seems to me it is one thing to debate the details and hammer out a solution that will forge a meaningful consensus. It is another thing to continue to rant and rave about things that are simply untrue. Such rhetoric suggests a determination to kill any bill as opposed to working for a better bill.
What can be done to get sonething done this year in the face of this opposition? Is the opposition just coming from Republicans in congress who are determined to see this President fail? Are Democrats and liberals also at fault for insisting on a bill that meets their criteria, even insisting on a single payer system which simply does not have enough support to become law? I guess for me the bottom line is what is the point of supporting a policy, no matter how good it may be, if it is not possible to enact it into law? As is often said, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.
I believe success will require a bi-partisan approach. What we need to look for is a bill that nobody really likes. Then we will know we have achieved a true compromise. The notion that the Democratic congress should pass whatever it chooses with just 51 votes is not a good idea. The progress that has been made thus far has come from a coalition of all interested parties agreeing to several points. These include, the need to insure the uninsured, the need to reduce costs, and especially the need for a universal mandate. The fact is if everybody doesn't participate you will not have a buy in from the wealthy or the young who feel they don't need insurance. Social Security has worked because everyone is required to pay in. Auto insurance has been effective because you must purchase insurance to operate a vehicle. Universal insurance dramatically increases the pool making it possible to hold down costs and eliminate preexisting conditions. The focus must be what is best for our country and our people, not what is best for me.
Therefore, I believe the Senate compromise being fashioned by Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley is the way to go. To reach an effective compromise each party will have to let something go and recognize they can not have everything they want. I believe the health-care "cooperatives" that are being talked about may offer some interesting possibilities for the bill, especially if they can be worked into some kind of acceptable "public option". After the bill is crafted amendments can be offered to improve the bill. I believe this process is the best way to achieve success. Sixty years is long enough to wait for this program to be enacted. Let's get this job done. If it doesn't come out perfect we can certainly tinker with it in future years, just as the prescription drug program passed by the Bush administration needs some work. The notion, however that we need to take our time and not rush into health care reform is ludicrous. The fact is, time is running out. Let's get this job done, now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
